For those who think they can “lose itâ€Â…

[mondar]

When one understands the FREE GIFT of JUSTIFICATION, then one can understand the entire Word of God. Paul has written that those who have the FREE GIFT are no longer condemned, but are righteous (Justified) in Christ Jesus.

• And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. Romans 5:16

By ONE OFFENSE, condemnation came upon ALL men, but by the righteousness of JESUS CHRIST (not the righteousness of man), the FREE GIFT of JUSTIFICATION came and removed the condemnation.

• Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Romans 5:18

Who are under condemnation?

Solo, I want to express agreement with what you said above. A proper understanding of the doctrine of justification would imply that one cannot loose his justification. What your wrote is exciting and allow me the pleasure of adding just a little to your good comments.

If we can loose our justification, what would be the cause of that? I think the end of Romans 8 answers that question.
Rm 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
If God acquited us of charges of sin... If the divine judge banged his gavel on his bench and pronounced us innocent of charges, who can declare us guilty? Who then can say we should not be judtified because of some failure on our part. If God acquites us, surely any charges of sin will not come from God. Also, notice that statement of justification in verse 33. The context of course is related to justification (cf vs 30) (and a few other doctrines).

34 who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
If God the Father acquits us, will Christ bring charges against us of unfaithfulness? Will Christ condemn us who died for us? Will Christ condemn us who was raised from the dead for us. Certainly not. The rest of Chapter 8 is about how the love of Christ for us is inseparable.

I think the key is verse 32. It says...
" He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?"
The word "freely" (χαρισεται)is a form of the word grace. God has graceously given us all things. It seems to me that the claim that we must maintain our salvation is a violation of the teaching that salvation is completely by grace alone. It is a free gift. God freely gave us "all" things. All things necessary for our justification were accomplished by Christs shed blood. Verse 32 also has the reason God can give us all things. He spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all. The word "all" refers to those for whom Christ died in behalf of them. If refers to those for whom Christ died instead of them. The greek preposition huper is used (υπερ ημων παντων παρεδωκεν) which indicates that Christ was an active substitute and the punishment has been made. It is completed. It is finished. If this substution has already been made, and Christ died in our place already, can he undie? Can he unshed his blood that was the payment price for our justification? Can his substution be unsubstuted? Excuse the pun when I say "heavens no."

There is only justification. There is no unjustification, no rejustification, onlyl justification by faith alone through grace alone.

Works never add to our justification, but they are the fruits of justification. Works never keep us justified, but they are the fruits of justification.

What you have said about Romans 5 is very needed. I just wanted to express my agreement.

 

[Drew]

A proper understanding of the doctrine of justification would imply that one cannot loose his justification.

What is your response to NT Wright's arguments which seem to assert that the "final verdict" re justification is delivered at the end of one's life lived?

 

[mondar]

What is your response to NT Wright's arguments which seem to assert that the "final verdict" re justification is delivered at the end of one's life lived?

I never read the argument. One of the things he would have to explain is why the verb justified is often aorist tense. The verbal form is found in Romans 8:30. It is εδικαιωσεν. The aorist tense carries with it the concept of justification occuring at a past event. This implies justification at the cross. Now one could say that this justification is not effective until our present lives, because earlier in Romans it stressed that justification is by faith. Our faith does not occur until our lives. Nevertheless, even after faith, I dont see any grammatical basis for making justification future. How would that fit with Romans 8:38?
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
Things to come do not affect our justification and Christs love.

I know I did not read the arguments of this persons book, but already question his hypothesis with what I know of scripture.

PS, Romans 8:33 sounds present tense, but it has no true verb for justifcation. It is a predicate nomanitive construction. I have not looked at every text in greek, and there are many, but In romans 8 the argument of future justification does not look good.

PSS, also, this sounds to me like justification by works. I can never agree with such a doctrine. If one desires, I will be happy to discuss James 2.

 

[Drew]

If we can loose our justification, what would be the cause of that? I think the end of Romans 8 answers that question.
Rm 8:33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
If God acquited us of charges of sin... If the divine judge banged his gavel on his bench and pronounced us innocent of charges, who can declare us guilty? Who then can say we should not be judtified because of some failure on our part. If God acquites us, surely any charges of sin will not come from God.

This argument would turn out to be entail an incorrect conceptualization of what justification really is, if it turned out that "justification" were pronounced by God at the end of our lives as I believe that NT Wright argues above. I see a lot of power in his arguments although I am still thinking about this.

Wright has a funny take on this that is a little hard (at least for me) to understand. I think that he is saying that works prove that one is indeed "in Christ" - they are the evidence that a person really has accepted the gift of grace-based (not works-based!) salvation that God offers. If there are no works, this suffices to show that the gift was not really accepted.

Or, for you Calvinist types, the absence of works proves the person was not a member of the "elect".

If justification takes place at the end of our lives, then there simply is no issue of losing one' salvation, since there is no time to lose something you effectively get at the end of your life.

While this is a response to mondar's post, I am also interested in what unred and cybershark have to say about this (and others, of course).

 

[Solo]

Let me see now, should I believe NT Wright and his writings, or should I believer the Holy Spirit and His writings?

Hmmmmmmmmm.........................................................I believe that I will go with the Holy Spirit and His writings! NT's writings are suspect, and the Holy Spirit's writings are truth.

 

[Drew]

I know I did not read the arguments of this persons book, but already question his hypothesis with what I know of scripture.

Obviously, what any of us, me included, claim to know about scripture can turn out to be mistaken. I believe that NT addresses the issue about "tenses" that you raise in the very material that I posted.

While I symptathize with the impracticality of not continually re-evaluating what we have come to believe, we cannot really claim to have made a case unless and until we respond to counterarguments. True, this is difficult to do.

PSS, also, this sounds to me like justification by works. I can never agree with such a doctrine. If one desires, I will be happy to discuss James 2.

I think that we have fundamentally different approaches to things. I would never say that "I can never agree with doctrine X", since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available.

 

[Drew]

Let me see now, should I believe NT Wright and his writings, or should I believer the Holy Spirit and His writings?

Hmmmmmmmmm.........................................................I believe that I will go with the Holy Spirit and His writings! NT's writings are suspect, and the Holy Spirit's writings are truth.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to identify the flaw of logic that this post entails.

 

[Guest]

I think that we have fundamentally different approaches to things. I would never say that "I can never agree with doctrine X", since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available.

That means you will evaulate any and all - which then allows for a foothold to be opened into your life.

 

[AVBunyan]

What is your response to NT Wright's arguments which seem to assert that the "final verdict" re justification is delivered at the end of one's life lived?

I believe your writer missed who these folks are - I believe Paul is referring to those Gentiles prior to when the law was given in the OT.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Paul is not dealing with the individual in the body of Christ or even the body of Christ of Ephesians so the writer's argument is out of context. Those folks in vs. 7 are not us today.

 

[Solo]

I believe your writer missed who these folks are - I believe Paul is referring to those Gentiles prior to when the law was given in the OT.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Paul is not dealing with the individual in the body of Christ or even the body of Christ of Ephesians so the writer's argument is out of context. Those folks in vs. 7 are not us today.

~Solo thinks to himself

......Let us see if he lives up to the words of his previous post..............

• Drew wrote:"I would never say that 'I can never agree with doctrine X', since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available."

 

[Drew]

~Solo thinks to himself

......Let us see if he lives up to the words of his previous post..............

• Drew wrote:I would never say that "I can never agree with doctrine X", since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available.

I will investigate the argument that AVB has expressed. Are you expecting to simply accept it uncritically?

 

[Solo]

~Solo thinks to himself

......Let us see if he lives up to the words of his previous post..............

• Drew wrote:"I would never say that 'I can never agree with doctrine X', since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available."

I will investigate the argument that AVB has expressed. Are you expecting to simply accept it uncritically?

I have never accepted anything without investigation and reason. It is amazing that I even became a believer! As far as justification is concerned in the process of Salvation, years ago God has given me his understanding.

Acknowledge God Almighty in all that you do, and He will direct your paths. Also, seek Godly council from true believers. It will be advantages for you to do so. :

 

[mondar]

I think that we have fundamentally different approaches to things. I would never say that "I can never agree with doctrine X", since I am keenly aware of the need to continually re-evaluate what I hold to be true and not dismiss any argument out of hand. I do agree that this can be time-consuming and difficult. But it is the only path that I see available.

Drew, you could be quite right that we have a fundamental difference in our approach. If I see that the scriptures clearly and indisputably teach a certain doctrine I simply feel no need to re-evaluate my position. Why should I care if some guy wrote a book that has a different opinion. There are books out there with every opinion under the sun. Not all books are equal. I do not see any chance that someone can establish that justification is at the end of a persons life, I see no possibility for any reasonable textual evidence for such a teaching. I have already presented evidence from the text in Romans 8:30. I have mentioned the aorist tense of justified (εδικαιωσεν) in Romans 8:30. Can you show me the verb "justified" anywhere in the scripture which is in the future tense? Show me something in the text that indicates justification is future. Show me anything in the text of scriptures. I am not going to run out and re-evaluate my position because someone I never met (you) knows of a book that has a different position. I especially will not bother to re-evaluate my position when there are textual reasons in the scripture to believe that Justification is a past tense event. I especially--especially--especially (no I am not studdering) will not bother to re-evaluate my position when you present not one shred of biblical evidence for your position.

This does not mean that I feel no need to learn, or that I believe myself to be infallible. I have much to learn, and make many mistakes. Neither does this mean that I do not read many authors to gain knowledge of scriptural teachings. Nevertheless, you have read the book, and if you cannot give any good scriptural evidence for your position, then the book did not do much good.

 

[Drew]

I especially--especially--especially (no I am not studdering) will not bother to re-evaluate my position when you present not one shred of biblical evidence for your position.

The post from NT Wright contains numerous items of scriptural support. However, if you are confident that your position is above error, you need address those arguments. I would not be so confident myself.

Here is some further material from Wright that I think shows how his position indeed satisifies your "tense" argument (I added the bolding):

And we now discover that this declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit – that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. And, near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the ‘call’ of the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. This is the point about justification by faith – to revert to the familiar terminology: it is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future. Justification is not ‘how someone becomes a Christian’. It is God’s declaration about the person who has just become a Christian

 

[Drew]

Just in case some of you have never heard of NT Wright, I believe that he is considered to be a highly respected theologian and scholar. Does that make his position on justification correct? Of course not. But his credentials certainly suggest that his arguments should not be dismissed out of hand.

Here is something about Wright from the web page of Pepperdine University:

The Right Reverend Dr. Wright is one of today’s best-known and respected New Testament scholars. Educated at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, he served as Fellow and Chaplain at Downing College, Cambridge (1978-1981), as Assistant Professor of New Testament Studies at McGill University in Montreal, Canada (1981-1986), and as Fellow and Chaplain of Worcester College, Oxford (1986-1993). He has served as Dean of Lichfield (1994-1999) and Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey (2000-2003). Currently he is Bishop of Durham. He has served as Visiting Professor at Yale Divinity School and Harvard Divinity School, among others.

 

[mondar]

And we now discover that this declaration, this vindication, occurs twice. It occurs in the future, as we have seen, on the basis of the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit – that is, it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. And, near the heart of Paul’s theology, it occurs in the present as an anticipation of that future verdict, when someone, responding in believing obedience to the ‘call’ of the gospel, believes that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. This is the point about justification by faith – to revert to the familiar terminology: it is the anticipation in the present of the verdict which will be reaffirmed in the future. Justification is not ‘how someone becomes a Christian’. It is God’s declaration about the person who has just become a Christian

And what is the biblical text being cited?

Also, when the quote says "it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense." The text says just the exact opposite of Paul. Romans 8:4-5 says.
4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness
Notice how these two verses are set up as antithesis. Each verse begins with a statement about works. Paul is saying that the reward of works is is "debt." Justification is not out of works and your author did say this is his reading of Paul.

Nevertheless, my point in this post is "what biblical text is the books comments based upon?"

 

[Drew]

And what is the biblical text being cited?

My immediate response to your question may seem evasive, but here it is.

My take on NT Wright is that his arguments are obviously more complex than the typical overly simple "verse X says Y so that's that" kind of argument one gets sometime around here. And I am not directing this remark at mondar.

I hope to get back to you on this, but I fear that my answer may take the form of either of the following:

1. You will need to read Wright for yourself;

2. You will have to give me time to attempt to fully understand what he is saying and present his arguments in reasonably concise form.

 

[mondar]

My take on NT Wright is that his arguments are obviously more complex than the typical overly simple "verse X says Y

With a doctrine such as justification, I would see an exegetical study as the real issue. How can we establish what Paul was saying without a detailed study of the context, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of some passage or verse? I would hope your book has such discussions. I dont know what field your professor teaches, but I hope he has a good working knowledge of the text, and is not some philosophy professor. I dont think a philosopher can sit under a tree and think up what Paul was saying. That will come by study of the text.

Now I recognize that just because someone attaches a verse reference to some concept that does not establish the argument. I know that is frequently done and I do not think bad argumentation with a reference should ever replace good exegesis.

it occurs on the basis of ‘works’ in Paul’s redefined sense. And, near the heart of Paul’s theology,

I noticed that in your book the author speaks for Paul. He mentions Paul twice by name in the short paste above. Can we honestly think we can represent what Paul said without closely studying the text? I look forward to hearing about the grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and context of some verses or passages in Romans.

PS... Take your time.

 

[Drew]

Although the following post does not address Mondar's specific questions, I think it at least clarifies, to some extent what Wright's position is on the matter of justification:

From this perspective we can see how, in Romans 1-4, Paul has set out the three tenses of justification. Justification is the future verdict in 2:1-16: there will come a day when the righteous creator will put the world to rights, and on that day some will be declared to be in the right, even though at the moment, within the poetic sequence of Romans, it is not exactly clear who will come into this category (2:7,10,14-16).

Justification is also the past verdict pronounced over Jesus in his resurrection: as the resurrection declared that Jesus was indeed god’s son (1:4), so it declares in principle that he is the true Israel, the vindicated people of the creator. The famous doctrine of “justification by faith,†as articulated in 3:27-30 and undergirded in 4:1-25, consists in
the present justification (cf. 3:26, ***Drew Comment: here Wright inserts some greek, presumably re Rom 3:26 and asserts that the greek meaning is “in the present timeâ€Â) in which the past verdict over Jesus is brought forward and applied to those who have faith in the god who raised Jesus, and in which the future verdict is brought backwards with the same application and result (cf. 8:1: there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus).

 

[mondar]

Justification is the future verdict in 2:1-16: there will come a day when the righteous creator will put the world to rights, and on that day some will be declared to be in the right, even though at the moment, within the poetic sequence of Romans, it is not exactly clear who will come into this category (2:7,10,14-16).

In this part of the quote, I would disagree that "justification is a future verdict." Drew, read the verses mentioned for yourself and ask where does the doctrine of justification come into Chapter 2. I hope you will observe that the term justification does not even occur until Chapter 3. I would agree that both present and future results of justification. Present and future results should not be blurred with the actual event (that moment when God bangs his gavel and acquits the believer of sin.) Drew, read chapter 2 for yourself and show me which exact phrase that says justification itself is future.

The famous doctrine of “justification by faith,†as articulated in 3:27-30 and undergirded in 4:1-25, consists in
the present justification (cf. 3:26, ***Drew Comment: here Wright inserts some greek, presumably re Rom 3:26 and asserts that the greek meaning is “in the present timeâ€Â) in which the past verdict over Jesus is brought forward and applied to those who have faith in the god who raised Jesus, and in which the future verdict is brought backwards with the same application and result (cf. 8:1: there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus).

Alrighty, well, your book makes some good points. I made statements about past justification based on Romans 8:30, but Romans 3:24-26 does have some indication of present tense aspects of justification. I will agree to include present tense concepts of justification.

Actually I like a part of what the author says.... "in which the past verdict over Jesus is brought forward and applied to those who have faith in the god who raised Jesus," It is a good statement. I think it deals with the present tense feel of Romans 3, but also explains the aorist tense verb of Romans 8:30.

Concerning Romans 8:1, you could say that because of our past/present tense justification we will not experience condemnation in the future. This means that there is a consequence of our past/present tense justification. We are now justified, and our justification status in the future will not change. There is no condemnation. Drew, there is a great difference between future consequences and a future declaration. I ask you to judge for yourself. How is Romans 8:1 saying that there is anything more then future consequences of our justification?

Also, consider, if there is a future consequence of there being no condemnation because of our justification, how can we loose the gift of justification?

Drew, I see a great terrible danger in the concept of progressive justification. It can lead to no good. I think the reason for the aorist tense very "to justify" is to eliminate any concept that justification can ever be a process. Sanctification is a process, but justification and sanctification are not the same thing. If there is progressive justification our justification can grow by works. There is nothing more clear in the scriptures, nothing more important then understanding that justification is by faith alone, and that justification is a moment when God bangs his gavel and declared the sinner acquited of all charges on the basis of Christs blood. Because of this acquital, there is therefore no condemnation.