Justification: Main Idea?

[Doulos Iesou]

Hello Posters,

I thought this would be a very telling question and one that could help us dig a little deeper into this doctrine.

What was the main idea of Paul's reason for arguing for Justification, what was his argument structured around and why did he bring up this concept so often?

Supporting your answers with Scripture is of course important!

Blessings in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

 

[ezra]

justified -declared not guilty--declared righteous all by the power of the cross through faith.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

justified -declared not guilty--declared righteous all by the power of the cross through faith.

So you'd say that it is completely forensic in nature? That Paul used the doctrine of Justification in regards to our legal standing before God?

 

[Danus]

justified -declared not guilty--declared righteous all by the power of the cross through faith.

So you'd say that it is completely forensic in nature? That Paul used the doctrine of Justification in regards to our legal standing before God?

Doulos Iesou, so that others are more clear regarding your question; There is a new perspective these days which seems to be preoccupied with investigating the problem Paul has with "works" or "works of the law."

To be more clear, In the "old", or traditional "Protestant", perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. This is still the standard view. In the new perspective we are seeing ore of these days, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations. Personally I see merit in the new perspective, but it follows the traditional view in my opinion and dose not stand on it's own as a replacement at all.
Is this what you are driving at for a discussion?

The reason I ask is that some people may be confused on the question you asked, and may tend to think your argument might be one surrounding meritorious salvation, which is often how many view the law on it's own. In other words, can you frame up your position first so that we might avoid misunderstanding, and give others a chance to respond in the traditional senes if they desire? Can you do that for us please?

Your last thread on the subject of "annihilationism" was respectful, but I don't want this to go down a rabbit hole of your direction only by asking a curiosity seeker to follow you without first telling them where you are leading them; so that they might be prepared for the discussion.

 

[ezra]

justified -declared not guilty--declared righteous all by the power of the cross through faith.

So you'd say that it is completely forensic in nature? That Paul used the doctrine of Justification in regards to our legal standing before God?

forensic in nature..i am saying jesus set me free from the law of sin and death ..Romans 3:24
being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.... this is where we stand in our walk with Christ along with justified we have been sanctified (set apart) then we would have bring mercy and Grace into this .. there is no one certain word to be used in the plan of salvation...other than Forgiven . as per completely forensic in nature--i have no idea what your getting at ..like the old song i am saved and i know that i am

 

[ezra]

i often wonder where folks get all these wild ideas at.. i been studying the Bible well over 15 years and i have just began to scratch the surface. as a minister i never get caught up in movements--a person is either saved or not saved. heaven is at the end of a life in Christ. HELL is at the end of a life w/o Christ where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. .the old argument hell is the grave then we can jump over to the finial judgment Revelation Chapter 20 : 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. ( who wants to find out if its eternal torment or complete burn up... of course one could refer back to luke 16 ..

 

[ezra]

, but I don't want this to go down a rabbit hole of your direction only by asking a curiosity seeker to follow you without first telling them where you are leading them; so that they might be prepared for the discussion.

i look things up i dont understand and proceed by caution..i never jump in the water till i know how deep it is lol :shocked!

 

[Danus]

, but I don't want this to go down a rabbit hole of your direction only by asking a curiosity seeker to follow you without first telling them where you are leading them; so that they might be prepared for the discussion.

i look things up i dont understand and proceed by caution..i never jump in the water till i know how deep it is lol :shocked!

I know. & I was not directing that at you specifically.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos Iesou, so that others are more clear regarding your question; There is a new perspective these days which seems to be preoccupied with investigating the problem Paul has with "works" or "works of the law."

Hi Danus,

I'd like to think that the new perspective is interested in much more than investigating this issue, the "new perspective on Paul" is brought on from a new perspective on second temple Judaism, and recognizing the position he was opposing in a better light rather than a Jewish culture that was akin to the RCC of the 16th Century. I'm not totally sold on any one position in regards to Justification as I see merits in several areas, I would maybe call where I land the "Progressive Reformed View," but I would say it's much like the New Perspectivists position, taking into account much of the merit they've brought to the table in shedding light on this issue.

To be more clear, In the "old", or traditional "Protestant", perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. This is still the standard view. In the new perspective we are seeing ore of these days, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations. Personally I see merit in the new perspective, but it follows the traditional view in my opinion and dose not stand on it's own as a replacement at all.
Is this what you are driving at for a discussion?

Well my hope in bringing up Justification is to have a fruitful conversation that ultimately goes back to Scripture and seeks to have some understanding of where people around here stand on the issue. As you can see I am a new poster, and I'm not sure what is the dominant position on certain topics across posters.

Also, I agree that the "new perspective" is not intended to be a replacement to the "old perspective" but rather to clarify some things that may not have been entirely accurate.

The reason I ask is that some people may be confused on the question you asked, and may tend to think your argument might be one surrounding meritorious salvation, which is often how many view the law on it's own. In other words, can you frame up your position first so that we might avoid misunderstanding, and give others a chance to respond in the traditional senes if they desire? Can you do that for us please?

Well, to ask for me to frame up my view on Justification is no small task. haha

I certainly do not mean to be mysterious or shady in my posting or that I am prowling around to ambush a poster with something they haven't heard before. I am very open with stating what it is I believe, and I will very briefly state what I believe in a few bullet points. Though please know as I stated earlier, I'm not totally decided on where I stand in regards to this issue, nor have I worked out all of it's kinks. I'm still a rather new Christian.. only have been walking with the Lord for a couple years. I imagine I have a few things to learn.

- I believe in the distinction between present and future Justification.. that the present Justification by faith anticipates the future Judgement which Scripture resoundingly teaches will be by the deeds done in our bodies. That through the present Justification, the Spirit enables the Christian to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, through faith working through love. This is a very brief description, but I bet you've encountered it before.
- I believe in the forensic nature of Justification, that the language employed by Paul is in many regards akin to law-court language.
- I deny the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer.
- I believe that one of the primary functions of Justification is in regards to Paul's vindicating his ministry to the Gentiles, that the doctrine of Justification was first relevant to the issue with Gentiles as well as Jews being included in the people of God and apart of the Covenant promises through Christ.

Things I am torn about.
- The meaning of the word righteousness as Paul used it, I see some elements of Covenant Faithfulness, but I don't think that's the whole of it.
- The total effect of Justification on soteriology.
- The meaning of the works of the law, and if it is totally Covenantal Nominism vs Variegated Nominism.
- The subjective genitive versus objective genitive issue of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.. or faith in Christ. I tend to lean towards both of the ideas being in Paul's thought.

Much more could be said, and there is probably much that is integral that is not coming to mind, but that's a bit for you to chew on.

Your last thread on the subject of "annihilationism" was respectful, but I don't want this to go down a rabbit hole of your direction only by asking a curiosity seeker to follow you without first telling them where you are leading them; so that they might be prepared for the discussion.

Thank you Danus, I hope this thread is constructive and sticks to Scripture without being derailed. When first coming to a forum you learn rather quickly, where to invest your energies.. and sometimes (regrettably) where not to.

Blessings in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

 

[Doulos Iesou]

forensic in nature..i am saying jesus set me free from the law of sin and death ..Romans 3:24
being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.... this is where we stand in our walk with Christ along with justified we have been sanctified (set apart) then we would have bring mercy and Grace into this .. there is no one certain word to be used in the plan of salvation...other than Forgiven . as per completely forensic in nature--i have no idea what your getting at ..like the old song i am saved and i know that i am

Thanks for your reply, how would you view the purpose of the law then in the Christians life? How do you work that out?

Look forward to your response.

Blessings in Christ,
Servant of Jesus

 

[farouk]

Theological terms have their uses, certainly.

But in simple terms, as a sinner I need the righteousness of God imputed or reckoned to my account by faith in the Lord Jesus. Not just the idea of me supposedly becoming more and more righteous, somehow.

Romans 5.1 indicates a completed action in jutification by faith: 'Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God, though our Lord Jesus Christ'.

This great and essential truth should not be obscured by theological terms, which do have their uses, but we must remember we are wretched sinners by nature in need of a Savior.

 

[childeye]

Doulos Iesou. Great thread topic. Right to the point. The time of the sons of Light must be near.

There are two flaming swords that guard the way to the tree of life. I believe that only the pure of heart and the unguilty conscience can pass through. Justification therefore is not a placebo, but a sure and solid conviction based upon seeing an eternal and unmoving Truth.

Jesus meant what he said, when he said, "forgive them for they know not what they do". Want more proof? The apostles willingly gave up their lives to preach the truth to a world held under the powers of darkness. They knew they would be persecuted and killed by the very people they desired to set free. More proof? The honest man finds the Truth irresistable. Why? Because the truth is, I cannot choose to not admit the truth when I see it, without admitting the truth when I see it.

The Truth is that men are justified even as Jesus died in our stead and rose from the dead. Since he rose from the dead, what he did on our behalf was the right thing to do. It was just, because he is just. Hence the justification is an act of moral imperative where a mans sins are not imputed unto him. For the pure of heart and unguilty forgives all sins and tresspasses against him on account of this Truth, lest he condemn his own self and do injustice.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

i often wonder where folks get all these wild ideas at.. i been studying the Bible well over 15 years and i have just began to scratch the surface.

Indeed there is so much to study in Scripture, however I wouldn't classify the "new perspective" as a wild idea. It just comes from a scholarly study of the literature and teachings of the Jews of the second temple Judaism era, to understand better what Paul would have meant... as well as whom Paul would have been opposing in his arguments for Justification.

as a minister i never get caught up in movements--a person is either saved or not saved.

I think we boil down the issue too much, when we make it about.. who is saved and who is not. I see Paul's teachings yes.. largely dealing with the issue of how one is saved, but also a major issue is how one can know they are apart of the people of God.. knowing they are children of God. As well as many other issues.

A reductionistic Christianity cannot be supported from Scripture.

heaven is at the end of a life in Christ.

Yes, but heaven isn't the end of the story. We find that the new heavens and new earth will be the ultimate residing place of the Christian. Not just a disembodied heaven where we go until Christ returns.

HELL is at the end of a life w/o Christ where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. .the old argument hell is the grave then we can jump over to the finial judgment Revelation Chapter 20 : 10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. ( who wants to find out if its eternal torment or complete burn up...

Do you believe people go to Hell directly after they die? That, Hades and Hell are the same place and that both are distinct from the lake of fire?

of course one could refer back to luke 16 ..

This is a little off-topic and might be best if we take it to my other open thread, but do you believe that Luke 16 is a literal description of hell? Or that the purpose of Jesus teaching there was to describe the nature of hell?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Theological terms have their uses, certainly.

But in simple terms, as a sinner I need the righteousness of God imputed or reckoned to my account by faith in the Lord Jesus. Not just the idea of me supposedly becoming more and more righteous, somehow.

Romans 5.1 indicates a completed action in jutification by faith: 'Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God, though our Lord Jesus Christ'.

This great and essential truth should not be obscured by theological terms, which do have their uses, but we must remember we are wretched sinners by nature in need of a Savior.

Hi Farouk, thanks for contributing to the thread.

A question for you, do you have any Scriptural support of the Christian being judged by someone else's deeds on at the judgement seat of Christ?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Doulos Iesou. Great thread topic. Right to the point. The time of the sons of Light must be near.

Thank you Childeye! Thanks for contributing to the discussion, I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

There are two flaming swords that guard the way to the tree of life. I believe that only the pure of heart and the unguilty conscience can pass through. Justification therefore is not a placebo, but a sure and solid conviction based upon seeing an eternal and unmoving Truth.

Are you meaning by this, that it isn't just something synthetic or not really there, but a real righteousness that we have? Thank you in advance for your clarification.

Jesus meant what he said, when he said, "forgive them for they know not what they do". Want more proof? The apostles willingly gave up their lives to preach the truth to a world held under the powers of darkness. They knew they would be persecuted and killed by the very people they desired to set free. More proof? The honest man finds the Truth irresistable. Why? Because the truth is, I cannot choose to not admit the truth when I see it, without admitting the truth when I see it.

Hmm... how do you think these statements relate to the issue of Justification? Just trying to pick your brain and understand better where you are coming from.

The Truth is that men are justified even as Jesus died in our stead and rose from the dead. Since he rose from the dead, what he did on our behalf was the right thing to do. It was just, because he is just. Hence the justification is an act of moral imperative where a mans sins are not imputed unto him. For the pure of heart and unguilty forgives all sins and tresspasses against him on account of this Truth, lest he condemn his own self and do injustice.

Would you say that it is merely just a "non-imputation" of guilt? Or would you say there is a positive side to imputation?

Thank you for your response,
Servant of Jesus

 

[ezra]

Do you believe people go to Hell directly after they die? That, Hades and Hell are the same place and that both are distinct from the lake of fire?

to be in context as some would say hades and hell appears to be different than the lake of fire at the finial judgement .either way if a person is in hell hades they are at the point of no returns. when the Christian dies we are asleep with jesus 1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him..

do you believe that Luke 16 is a literal description of hell? Or that the purpose of Jesus teaching there was to describe the nature of hell?

REAL had it just been teaching it would began hear the parable

the new heavens and new earth

really never gave it much thought as to how/where so did quick search with Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=21&vs=undefined {some things i accept by faith. but this question caused me to do a search

the purpose of the law then in the Christians life?

law tells us what sin is. but can Not Prevent it. the HolySpirit gives us the power we need --i call it resurrection power---->quickened . i use simple logic's -- .. " Exegesis " why not just say explanation or how i believe at no time did Christ use terms like this. he used things they could relate to sheep. door Sheppard wheat tares . it dont take a rocket scientist to understand the Bible --men with 4th grade education can understand it. i do not discredit Bible education ..but today to pastor a Big church of thousands some even hundreds they want a D.R degree . i have known men that could barely read ..understand the Bible ( so much for chasing that rabbit }

 

[childeye]

Are you meaning by this, that it isn't
just something synthetic or not really there, but a real righteousness that we
have? Thank you in advance for your clarification.

I do see a real righteousness we have always had called love, on account of the spiritual attributes of the Creator endowed in the creation. However any doubt in the Creator is also a doubt in ourselves. We like virgins, did not know what a virgin is. Nor did we esteem God as God when we knew Him.

Originally Posted by childeye

Jesus meant what he said, when he said, "forgive them for
they know not what they do". Want more proof? The apostles willingly
gave up their lives to preach the truth to a world held under the powers
of darkness.
They knew they would be persecuted and killed by the very
people
they desired to
set free. More proof? The honest man finds the
Truth
irresistable. Why? Because
the truth is, I cannot choose to not
admit the
truth when I see it, without
admitting the truth when I see
it.

Hmm... how do you think these statements relate to the issue of

Justification? Just trying to pick your brain and understand better
where you
are coming from.

It is my view that If men do not know they are decieved, they are in effect innocent of what they do because of ignorance. See the prodigal son.

Would you say that it is merely just a "non-imputation" of guilt? Or would you
say there is a positive side to imputation?

These questions are lost in semantics. Hence I could answer both yeah and nay for both questions. All things are pure to the pure of heart. All things work to good for those who Love God. So yes, there is a positive side to imputation and a negative side to non-imputation on the road away from God, but also a negative side to imputation and a positive side to non-imputation on the road back to God.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

to be in context as some would say hades and hell appears to be different than the lake of fire at the finial judgement .either way if a person is in hell hades they are at the point of no returns. when the Christian dies we are asleep with jesus 1 Thessalonians 4:14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him..

Fair enough, I won't press much more on that as it is off-topic.

REAL had it just been teaching it would began hear the parable

Would he? If you examine the context, all of Luke 15 and the front half of Luke 16 were parables and he only specifies that he is speaking a parable once in v.3. He however tells the 4 distinct stories in the form of a parable, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son and the Dishonest Manager.

Do you then suppose that he goes off without clarifying that he is telling a true story with the account of Lazarus and the Rich man?

really never gave it much thought as to how/where so did quick search with Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/vi...1&vs=undefined {some things i accept by faith. but this question caused me to do a search

I highly recommend you study this topic as it has huge implications about how we live in the present. We are the people of the future eternal creation, bringing that life into the present through faith and the down payment of our inheritance.. the Holy Spirit.

law tells us what sin is. but can Not Prevent it. the HolySpirit gives us the power we need --i call it resurrection power---->quickened . i use simple logic's -- .. " Exegesis " why not just say explanation or how i believe at no time did Christ use terms like this. he used things they could relate to sheep. door Sheppard wheat tares . it dont take a rocket scientist to understand the Bible --men with 4th grade education can understand it. i do not discredit Bible education ..but today to pastor a Big church of thousands some even hundreds they want a D.R degree . i have known men that could barely read ..understand the Bible ( so much for chasing that rabbit }

Would you designate that as a comprehensive analysis of what the Law's purpose is now?

Also, while I agree by God's grace unlearned men can understand the Bible. I think we need to understand that the Bible is an old book far removed from our culture, and that we have a tendency to create anachronisms with our interpretations and therefore need to understand that it was God's Word to them first, before it was God's Word to us.

 

[ezra]

Do you then suppose that he goes off without clarifying that he is telling a true story with the account of Lazarus and the Rich man?

do you believe eternal damnation is true?

Would you designate that as a comprehensive analysis of what the Law's purpose is now?

would you?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

do you believe eternal damnation is true?

That depends on what one means by that statement. I am what some refer to as a Conditionalists, that I believe the nature of the final punishment is not never ending conscious torment. But that the sinner experiences absolute separation from God, by being handed over to the destruction of both body and soul in Hell. That immortality is God's alone (1 Timothy 6:16) and in order to share in his immortality we must be joined with him.

Would you like to answer my question about Lazarus and the Rich man?

Do you then suppose that he goes off without clarifying that he is telling a true story with the account of Lazarus and the Rich man?

would you?

I would not, but that's your view and not mine.