The Process Of Justification

[Rollo Tamasi]

Jesus teaches us that there are indeed some who believe for awhile, then in time of persecution, like the example I gave you of the Martyrs of the inquisitions, will fall away.

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
Luke 8:12-13


A person who believes, then later on no longer believes is called an
un-believer.

Believe = Saved

Believe for a while = Saved for a while


JLB

I call this Yo Yo Christianity.

 

[turnorburn]

I call this Yo Yo Christianity.

How about Yo Yo Justification?

tob

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How about Yo Yo Justification?

tob

Good thought.
Let me ponder that.

 

[JLB]

have you ever backslid?

tob

Of course I have, but I never stopped believing.

That's not what Jesus is teaching here, though.

What Jesus is teaching is about persecution, specifically persecution by other Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah.

Saul of Tarsus led the way in this for a while.

This persecution and remaining faithful unto death is what Jesus is teaching about here in this parable.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

First off God is never evil. This scripture I believe speaks to your question.
Matthew 18:33-35King James Version (KJV)
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Correct. He is just.
God's justice follows the one who is unjust. That does not make him evil.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I've never quit believing even in a backslid state, does that mean my salvation is null and void?

tob

No, it is not null and void.
Sin does not separate the believer from his justification. Not believing in Christ does. Treating the blood of Christ that sanctified you with contempt is what will result in the person who once believed and was sanctified to then lose that sanctification and suffer the damnation of the lost:

"26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
29How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-27,29 NIV)

You say you did not quit believing in the blood, but that you backslid into overwhelming sin. Hey, it happens. But Christ has you covered.....as long as you keep believing in the forgiveness he has provided for that backsliding.

"13if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." (2 Timothy 2:13 NIV)

Stay connected to him through faith and trust in Christ and he will remain faithful, even when you are not.
But if you disown him, now that is when you have a problem:

"If we disown him, he will also disown us" (2 Timothy 2:12 NIV)

You say you did not do that, though.

 

[turnorburn]

Didn't do what?

tob

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Didn't do what?

tob

You didn't deny Christ altogether. You know, stop believing in him.
You said you backslid but never stopped believing.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How about Yo Yo Justification?

tob

Impossible.
Hebrews says it is not allowed to crucify Christ all over again (Hebrews 6:4-6).
Once you lose your justification, that's it. You're out for good.
But I also believe God is gracious and long suffering. I'm of the opinion you gotta be pretty stubborn and determined to stay out of God's grace before he turns you over to that altogether. That's why i NEVER pass judgment on the poor soul who has walked away from Christ but now regrets it and wants to believe again. I leave the possibility for them to come back for God to decide.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Impossible.
Hebrews says it is not allowed to crucify Christ all over again (Hebrews 6:4-6).
Once you lose your justification, that's it. You're out for good.
But I also believe God is gracious and long suffering. I'm of the opinion you gotta be pretty stubborn and determined to stay out of God's grace before he turns you over to that altogether. That's why i NEVER pass judgment on the poor soul who has walked away from Christ but now regrets it and wants to believe again. I leave the possibility for them to come back for God to decide.

How noble of you.

 

[dadof10]

Your thread, justification a process, tells me your teaching that man plays a part in his salvation..

tob

Of course man plays a part in his justification, just not by doing "works", as you keep insisting. We are justified by "obedient faith", so when you ask me "which one of your works saves you" or some such thing, the question is illogical, because I don't perform "works of the law", which is what Paul is talking about.

 

[dadof10]

"For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (NIV)

I see this as Through the Blood of Christ God sees us as perfect... while He is perfecting us..
Sorta like ... If i was to die today i would see Him... yet 'hopefully' i will mature in Him and see Him in a few years

This is just a variation of Luther's "snow covered dung heap". I don't think the NIV properly translates this verse. I think "...those who are sanctified", like the KJV and NASB say is the accurate translation. The point of the verse is that the many sacrifices of the Jewish priests weren't able to remove sin, but Jesus' one time sacrifice did what theirs couldn't. It is His sacrifice that "makes perfect" the ones who are sanctified. The author's point is that if a person is sanctified, it is Jesus' sacrifice that makes him that way.

 

[reba]

And here i thought i had a good idea... i have never read Luthers work.

 

[dadof10]

But the faith that he had that had works attached did not justify him until Genesis 15:6. This is the sticking point you can't seem to see any other way: Faith does not justify categorically and without exception just because it did something. I proved this to you, but you seem incapable of seeing what I showed you. And that is why it's really pretty meaningless to try to continue to talk to someone who can't see. My responses will be brief for that reason.

The author of Hebrews disagrees with you. The faith he had in Gen. 12 had "works attached":

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went."

This is an obvious example of trusting, obedient faith, faith with "works attached", justifying faith. The reason you can't see it is because you don't want to.

Right, he doesn't use the words 'Genesis 15:6'. He directly quotes it: "3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3 NIV)

No, no. That verse does not say Abraham was justified in Genesis 12.
Paul is explaining how the promise comes through the way of faith, not through the way of keeping the law. The context bears this out completely:

"he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all." (Romans 4:11-16 NIV)

Context, dadof10, context! He is not making the point that Abraham was justified in Genesis 12. He is making the point that the promise comes through faith, not the works of the law. That's all. Read it. And read it without your predetermined doctrine interpreting it for you and making it mean to you what it has already determined ahead of time for you that it means.

Since you want to limit the length of your responses, simple yes or no answers will suffice here:

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom.4:13 KJV)

1) Was the "...promise, that he should be the heir of the world" made in Gen. 12?
2) Does the term "righteousness of faith" mean "justification"?

 

[dadof10]

Believing that God by his command created what is from what is not is dead faith (no works attached), but it is commendable. But the point that you can not evade is, not all faith that has works attached justifies.I proved this to you. Believing that God is the creator is one of the Biblical examples I gave you right there in Hebrews 11.

You keep creating erroneous inverses out of what I say in an effort to discredit what I say:

I said the chapter is about commendable faith. You twist that to say I said 'all faith is commendable', citing the demons who have faith but who are not commended for that faith to try to discredit what I actually did say, not what you turned it around to say. 'All faith is commendable' is not what I said. There is faith that is commendable, but which does not justify. That I did say.

Wow, how did you get this from my last post? Why would I "try to discredit" what you said when I have been jonesing for you to actually engage like this for three weeks? Again, the reason I've been so adamant for you to respond to my points is because I value your opinion. We may disagree, Jethro, but I certainly respect you and am not trying to discredit you at all. I apologize. I'll try and be more clear.

Since our first encounter on this topic like 4 years ago, you have only mentioned two "kinds" of faith, "true, live, justifying faith" and "dead faith". You have said that justifying faith is the kind of faith that "trusts God and has works attached" (paraphrasing) and "dead faith" is the kind that "just believes without trusting or having any works attached" (again, paraphrasing). You are now introducing another "kind" of faith, "commendable", that seems to me like a hybrid. Faith that does trust, does obey, does have works attached, but does not justify. Let me stop here so I get this right. Is this what you are saying? If so, could you please show me where this is taught in Scripture. I agree that there are many examples of "justifying faith" in Scripture, in fact, I would say that every instance of faith mentioned is an example of "justifying faith", unless there is a good reason to think otherwise. "Dead faith" is also mentioned and taught in James and a few other places. I have never seen or heard of "commendable faith" defined as a faith that trusts God, has good deeds attached, obeys God, yet still does not justify.

I say some of the examples of faith in the chapter justified. You twist that to say 'since it's faith it had to justify'. But that is not what I said. That's what you are saying.

This is not what you said above, and that is what I was responding to. You said in a previous post "What you are trying to say it means each and every instance of faith, even commendable faith (the subject of Hebrews 11), results in justification." and in this post below "It's a chapter about 'commendable' faith." (no paraphrasing)

All Biblical scholars and apologists I have ever read, either Catholic or Protestant, agree that Heb. 11 only refers to justifying, saving, real true, faith, none have even used the words "commendable faith" in regards to Heb. 11. You are the only exception. You did not say in your previous post that "some of the examples of faith in the chapter justified", and I can not read minds. Now it's your turn to be clear.

Yes, 'commendable' faith. And this is why (I don't make this stuff up):

1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for." (Hebrews 11:1-2 NIV)

Humm...This seems like another instance of the NIV butchering the true meaning of Greek words. Here is the definition of "martyreō":

to be a witness, to bear witness, i.e. to affirm that one has seen or heard or experienced something, or that he knows it because taught by divine revelation or inspiration

1. to give (not to keep back) testimony
   
   
2. to utter honourable testimony, give a good report
   
   
3. conjure, implore

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3140&t=KJV

Here is the same verse in a couple of other versions:

For by it the elders obtained a good report. (KJV)

For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. (NKJV)

For by it the men of old received divine approval. (RSV)

And, your Bible of choice, until now, the NASB...

For by it the men of old gained approval. (NASB)

If it is your contention that it was God Who was "commending", "approving", or giving the "good report" to the elders' faith, then I agree with your view and we can move on to discuss how a faith that God "commends" or "approves" does not justify. I just think the word "commendable" seems a little weak. It almost seems as if it was "commendable" in the eyes of men instead of God, not to mention "commendable" is not even one of the synonyms used in Thayer's.

In passing, I would like to point out the Greek word "martyreō" translated "martyr" in English. That should say something about the "kind" of faith being spoken of here.

These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised" (Hebrews 11:39 NIV)

It's a chapter about 'commendable' faith. Commendable because it was faith that believed something it could not see and did not receive, and acted accordingly.

So, how do you get your view that this "commendable faith" doesn't justify, because they didn't "receive the promise"?

It's not, as you suggest, a chapter about faith that categorically and without exception justified the person in the exact moment they had that faith.

It's not me who is suggesting it, it's many, if not all, Biblical scholars. Maybe you can find one who disagrees with the majority, I don't know. But all I've ever read might have disagreed with the implications of it, but they all (mostly?) agree that Heb. 11 is about true, justifying faith.

I'll try to hit the rest of your posts in order. It took me longer than expected to respond to this post due to the fact I had to look stuff up. I'll also try to not be redundant. I won't respond to your "commendable faith" take anywhere but here.

 

[dadof10]

Then you believe this faith justifies a person before God:
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Hebrews 11:3 NIV)

No, I don't think this "kind of faith" justifies, but all justifying faith has to include this definition (and verse 3) to be the justifying faith talked about from verse 3 on. Please read that again, so I won't be misunderstood again. What the author is doing is defining the faith talked about one step at a time. First, he gives a broad definition, then adds another caveat in verse three (understanding "the worlds were framed by the word of God"), then goes on to describe the "men of old" who had a justifying faith. If it is a faith that does not justify, why does he describe Enoch being "taken up"? Why does he use the words "righteous" and "heir of righteousness" when describing Abel and Noah? Why is there no indication that this faith that leads to Heaven, makes one "righteous" and makes one an "heir of righteousness" has all of a sudden changed to a whitewashed "commendable faith" when he starts talking about Abraham? If it's the author's intention that only the people who he actually mentions as "righteous" or "taken up" are the only ones who have "justifying faith", why didn't he mention that Rahab was "righteous" also? See, the evidence is overwhelming. The faith being described is a justifying faith.

It would be nice if justification was that simple, but it's not. The author says that is faith, for sure, but it is faith that does not justify. But you are making the argument, whether you want to admit it or not, that it is the faith that justifies simply because it is commendable faith. That is the error you are trying to prop your doctrine up on.

I don't have to "prop up" my doctrine. As I said before, this is just one of MANY Biblical examples that could be given for the process of justification. I can reject Abraham being justified in Gen. 12 outright and still lose nothing. You, on the other hand, have to reject it, by any means necessary or your entire house of cards comes crashing down...A little over dramatic, but you get my point. :tongue

You're making the very sad mistake of thinking I said that no one in the chapter is being spoken of as being justified by their faith. The argument I'm making is these examples of faith are not examples of them being justified in the moment of having that faith. That's completely unreasonable to get out the chapter.

But this is what you get out of Paul's teaching on Gen. 15:6. You believe that the moment he "believed" in Gen. 15:6 (not a moment before, not a moment after) he was justified. You point to Paul saying this in Romans. How is it different either in Rom. 4:13, or Heb. 11? You have been telling me for years the the "moment" a person has a faith that "trusts" God and has "works attached" he is justified. Why is it different here? I have shown, and you have agreed, the Rom. 4:13 is referring to Gen. 12. Why can't you simply be consistent? If Abraham was "righteous" in Gen 15:6 when he "believed God", why wasn't he "righteous" (the exact word used by Paul in Rom. 4:13) when he showed the same faith at other times in his life? It's YOUR doctrine that's getting in the way of biblical teaching and logic.

What's laughable is you twisted my argument as if I'm saying not everyone was justified in Hebrews 11.

So, everyone in Heb. 11 was, at some time during their lives, justified, just not at the time mentioned in Heb. 11? Where in the world do you get this from?

You failed to hear my argument that the examples of having faith in Hebrews 11 are not instances of the moment they were declared righteous.

Really? The word "righteous" is in the text referring to the faith they had. The word "righteous" is in the text referring to Abraham's faith in Gen 15:6. How are these instances of faith different? Both are obedient and have "works attached". How are they different?

Maybe this will make your error more clear:

"24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter." (Hebrews 11:24 NIV)

"27 By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger" (Hebrews 11:27 NIV)

You're making the argument (from a predetermined idea) that Moses was made righteous (justified and re-justified) in each of these instances of faith. You're reading in your predetermined doctrine into the passage to make it say what it clearly does not say. It does not say he was justified each of those times. It's simply showing us two examples of faith that justified Moses had. That's all. It in no way teaches a series of justifications. It does teach a series of Moses of having faith. Not when he was justified by his faith.

By your predetermined doctrine, you are switching the meaning of faith from "justifying" in one verse to "commendable" in the very next verse, the very next word from v.7-v.8. You actually expect anyone to believe that, first the author says Noah was "an heir of righteousness by faith", meaning that the faith being described made him righteous (justified him). Then the very next word "by faith" is switched to mean "commendable faith", which doesn't justify??? Really? Is there any logical reason to hold this view, or is it simply because you can't hold this view and still hold your doctrine? As I said above, I'm not the one with motive to automatically dismiss truth to hold my "doctrine". It's not effected at all by either accepting or rejecting this take. Yours is destroyed if you accept this obvious truth.

In the case of Abraham, we know when he was justified by his faith--the faith he had been demonstrating from the time he left his homeland. How? The Bible plainly tells us!

"4Then the word of the Lord came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir.” 5He took him outside and said, “Look up at the sky and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspringd be.”
6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6 NIV)

A doctrine of repeated justifications drawn from inference from the scriptures simply has no basis, and more importantly actually contradicts what the Bible says about justification--about it being a one time born-again experience that does not need to be repeated, as I showed you from the scriptures.

"The Scriptures"....except the ones that don't . That's the problem with all the "only's" doctrine, it's really hard to deal logically with verses that plainly say something besides "faith alone" justifies.

 

[dadof10]

How about instead of deciding that's too illogical to be true, investigate it to see how it is indeed true despite it's apparent contradiction? And we know it is indeed true because 'are being' is in fact the correct Greek tense in the verse (https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/heb/10/1/t_conc_1143014). It's the Greek Present tense, which means this:

"The Greek present tense indicates continued action, something that happens continually or repeatedly, or something that is in the process of happening. If you say, for instance, "The sun is rising," you are talking about a process happening over a period of time, not an instantaneous event. The Greeks use the present tense to express this kind of continued action.

In contrast, Greek uses the aorist tense to show simple action. An aorist verb simply tells you that something happened, with no indication of how long it took. Aorist is like a snapshot; present is like a video."
http://ezraproject.com/id27.html​

So the NIV got it right on this one. And this being true--that our holiness is an ongoing continual process, not a one-time event--it forces us to ask how it is true according to the passage that believers are already made perfect forever (perfect tense) by the one sacrifice of Jesus, yet are being made (present tense) more and more clean and consecrated and perfect in holiness.

Here is what Thayer's says of the same word, same tense.

"The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present."

I don't know why the huge difference here. I'm not saying either version is right, just that it's odd that there is such a difference. Thayer's says it's the same as our English present tense, the Ezra Project says it's "continued action". I guess it's all about context and what makes the most sense and doesn't contradict what comes before, or "seem" to.

The point is, that either is acceptable, so it's not a slam dunk that "the NIV got it right on this one". It just seems to be more logical that the interpretation that doesn't contradict should be the right one, don't you think?

 

[dadof10]

And here i thought i had a good idea... i have never read Luthers work.

You ain't missing much...

 

[dadof10]

I call this Yo Yo Christianity.

What, me worry?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

What, me worry?

Hey dad, ever been to a Greek festival before?
I went to one Sunday afternoon.