The Process Of Justification

[Kidron]

I got it now. Your standard operating procedure is to focus one sentence in my posts so you can pontificate on your view of salvation as a whole, while ignoring questions specific to the topic. Let me just ask you two questions to clear this up.
?

You've asked me at least 3 times if a Christian can do good deeds, irrespective of the fact of the Judgement Seat of Christ, and simply because we love God with no intent in our hearts to "gain" anything in eternity.
Ive said "YEP".
So, i hope we are agreed.


K

 

[dadof10]

dadof10 , Douglas Summers ,

Was Paul only speaking of unbelievers among the Corinthians when he said these things?

" 1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3: NASB bold mine)


"20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world." (1 Corinthians 11:20-22,29-32 NASB bold mine)


32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE. 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame." (1 Corinthians 15:32-34 NASB capitals in original, bold mine)

And if he is speaking about the believers at Corinth, which he obviously is, how can he say they are unleavened (which he did)?

Yes, he's speaking about believers, members of the Church, not the Church itself. I would assume our views differ sharply on the issue of "Church".

In my view, Jesus founded ONE Church, which taught His truth "...I will build My church; ".

He guides this Church with His Holy Spirit "...and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Mat 16:18 NASB),

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (Jhn 16:13 NASB).

And Paul calls this Church "the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1Ti 3:15 NASB)

This is how Paul sees the Church. Then there is Acts 15, where he defers to the "elders" in Jerusalem on a major doctrinal issue. He didn't just "search Scripture" and make a decision himself, "splitting off" from other Christian "Judaizers" if they disagreed.

The Holy Spirit didn't guide each individual "justified, saved" person to "all truth", and He obviously doesn't to this day. Evidence being the thousands of "born again believers" and denominations who disagree on essential doctrine. There is a Church hierarchy, founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, commissioned to make binding doctrinal decisions (Acts 15). There is also the community of believers who submit to their teaching authority, whether oral or written: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2Th 2:15 NASB) This is the "lump" Paul is talking about.

That's the only way the "lump/leaven" analogy makes sense. Obviously he's talking about a man living a publicly sinful lifestyle within the Church community and he wants the Corinthians to "remove the wicked man from among yourselves", to "clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened." The "new lump" (the "yourselves" and "you") without the public sinner within it, is the Church. This is what Paul calls "unleavened" because it is guided by the Holy Spirit to "all truth". and so is infallible.

Anyway, that's how I see this whole lump/leaven analogy. Paul is obviously talking about the Church as a whole. Think about it, Jethro. If the "unleavened lump" was individual justified believers, how would removing a public sinner from their midst make them a "new lump" or make them "unleavened"? "Clean out the old leaven (the public sinner) so that you (individual believers) may be a new lump..." How could close proximity to a sinner add leaven (sin) to a justified believer? This is obviously is not about sin (leaven) and the justified person (the unleavened lump). It's about the corporate Church community. The "leaven" is the public sinner, the "lump" is the corporate Church community. Accepting this man into the community is like adding leaven to bread, and ruining the whole "lump". Paul wants them to remove the man (leaven) from the community "lump" and thereby create a "new lump". In context, he is calling the Church community "unleavened", not individual members.

 

[dadof10]

You've asked me at least 3 times if a Christian can do good deeds, irrespective of the fact of the Judgement Seat of Christ, and simply because we love God with no intent in our hearts to "gain" anything in eternity.
Ive said "YEP".
So, i hope we are agreed.


K

Nope, nice try. That was in the other thread, not this one. In this one you said that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. and (I assume) in Gen. 15:6. That's twice. Here are the questions again:

1) Are you sticking by your contention that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12?

2) Do you believe that Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 when Paul says his faith was "credited to him as righteousness"?

Will you answer this time?

 

[Kidron]

Nope, nice try. That was in the other thread, not this one. In this one you said that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. and (I assume) in Gen. 15:6. That's twice. Here are the questions again:

1) Are you sticking by your contention that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12?

2) Do you believe that Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 when Paul says his faith was "credited to him as righteousness"?

Will you answer this time?

Im saying that when Abraham "believed", then that is all that God required.
The works he did subsequent to believing, didnt justify him, as there was no need to be justified more then once.
So, thats what i said, and that is why i pointed out that justification is not a process.
Salvation / Justification are not a work in progress.
They are a finished work entitled... "JESUS SAVES".
Christ atonement finished the work of justification, and our Faith alone God accepts to then apply salvation unto us which justifies us.
This is "Grace".

 

[dadof10]

Im saying that when Abraham "believed", then that is all that God required.
The works he did subsequent to believing, didnt justify him, as there was no need to be justified more then once.
So, thats what i said, and that is why i pointed out that justification is not a process.
Salvation / Justification are not a work in progress.
They are a finished work entitled... "JESUS SAVES".
Christ atonement finished the work of justification, and our Faith alone God accepts to then apply salvation unto us which justifies us.
This is "Grace".

Ok, when Abraham "believed" in Gen. 12, he was justified the one and only time? What about Gen. 15:6, when God "credited" his faith to him as "righteousness"? He wasn't justified then?

 

[Kidron]

Ok, when Abraham "believed" in Gen. 12, he was justified the one and only time? What about Gen. 15:6, when God "credited" his faith to him as "righteousness"? He wasn't justified then?

I didnt list Genesis in my previous answer.
What i said is, when Abraham BELIEVED, he was THEN justified.
Thats what i believe.
And that is why Paul calls Abraham the Father of all who are saved, based on Grace thru Faith....Romans 4:14

 

[dadof10]

I didnt list Genesis in my previous answer.
What i said is, when Abraham BELIEVED, he was THEN justified.
Thats what i believe.
And that is why Paul calls Abraham the Father of all who are saved, based on Grace thru Faith....Romans 4:14

Not in your previous answer, but in post #44 you did. Here is what you wrote:

"So, it the same with Abraham's works.......he has the FAITH, and THEN he goes into the wilderness "not knowing where"....etc.
So, Abraham BELIEVED first (Faith) and THEN God applied righteousness, at the INSTANT of faith."

This going "into the wilderness" happened in Gen. 12. Abraham "has faith", then "God applied righteousness", then "he goes into the wilderness". This is your construct, which you doubled down on in post #48, after I informed you that the above happened in Gen. 12:

"And Abraham was absolutely justified by faith.
After that happened, he then did works. (went out)."

So, Abraham "was absolutely justified by faith", then after that, "went out". This going "out" happens in Gen. 12. The only thing I can conclude from your statements is that you believe that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12 by faith alone, and was not justified again in Gen. 15:6 because there's "no need to be justified more then once". Now do I have your position right?

 

[Kidron]

Not in your previous answer, but in post #44 you did. Here is what you wrote:

"So, it the same with Abraham's works.......he has the FAITH, and THEN he goes into the wilderness "not knowing where"....etc.
So, Abraham BELIEVED first (Faith) and THEN God applied righteousness, at the INSTANT of faith."

Let me show you what ive learned about "rightly dividing the Word".
The bible is meant to be "studied", and not just read.
"study to show yourself approved".
The reason is, God has done something very interesting, He has given us a book , and in it, you will find that one Scripture in Peter, is more clearly explained by another Scripture in 2nd Peter.
But you dont know this unless you study.
You'll discover that Paul will talk about Grace a little in the Acts of the Apostles, yet you have to study Romans and Galatians and Colossians & Ephesians to understand the Doctrine of Grace.
So, when you come to a scripture that sheds some light, but then you find another that burns like the sun, such as Gen 12 vs Gen 15, then dont be upset Dadof10 to find out these scriptures are to be taken together so that you get the full understanding.
That is how the Bible works.
It never gives you all the puzzle in one place, it only gives you a part here, to be connected to a part there, as you STUDY.
So, as i know this, then i understand how the scriptures you have posted 55 times, hook together as one.
And now perhaps you do as well.

 

[dadof10]

So, when you come to a scripture that sheds some light, but then you find another that burns like the sun, such as Gen 12 vs Gen 15, then dont be upset Dadof10 to find out these scriptures are to be taken together so that you get the full understanding.

Right. The "full understanding" that justification is a process. Why would I be upset when someone is agreeing with me? According to your previous posts, Abraham was justified by faith in Gen. 12. We agree on that point. Where we disagree is that I think he was also justified in Gen. 15. You obviously don't think so. Paul disagrees with you, though. Is that what you mean by "rightly dividing", disagreeing with Paul?

 

[Douglas Summers]

No, it was to the whole body.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's the only way the "lump/leaven" analogy makes sense. Obviously he's talking about a man living a publicly sinful lifestyle within the Church community and he wants the Corinthians to "remove the wicked man from among yourselves", to "clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened." The "new lump" (the "yourselves" and "you") without the public sinner within it, is the Church.

Here he's speaking directly to the whole lump--the real church--and they have leaven in them. So much so he calls these brethren (not the unbelievers among them) infants in Christ (not infants not in Christ) :

"1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3 NASB bold mine)

So it's plainly obvious he's not talking to the pollution of false brethren among them as you claim. He's addressing the actual believing church, calling them brothers 'in Christ'. And he says they have the leaven of jealousy and strife. Yet, legally speaking, he says they are unleavened and are perfect before God. So, despite their sin, which they are still in, their unleavened perfection still stands. He said so. Their sinning did not remove that so that they need to be re-justified.

We see another illustration of this concept of being always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins here:

"8 Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”" (John 13:8-10 NASB italics in orig.)

Peter doesn't need a whole bath all over again. He only needs his feet washed. The bath is justification. The washing of the feet is the stain of our daily sin that doesn't necessitate an entire re-washing (re-justification) of the believer. Note, Jesus did distinguish between the truly washed, but stained, Apostles, and the Apostle that was stained, but was not washed, Judas. For your understanding of 'unleavened' to be correct, the Apostles would not even need their feet washed, or else they would be in the same category as Judas, representing the leaven that is in the lump.

 

[JLB]

Exactly.
This is the same as James talking about showing works TO EACH OTHER that proves faith is alive. James 2:18.
James is not showing his works to God, he is showing it to other believers.

But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
James 2:18

You may have had a point, if the scripture said what you claim it said, but it didn't.

James isn't showing His works to anyone.

James says show me your "faith" without works.

I'll show you my "faith", by my works.

Abraham was justified through the obedience of faith, when He offered Isaac...

There was no one to show any works to.

God was the One who justified Abraham.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

The only thing that justifies is Obedience, for faith all by itself is dead.


JLB

 

[Sinthesis]

Perhaps one should consider that justification or righteousness doesn't have to cover the whole person, but might only concern one aspect of their life. For all the good done, no matter how many aspects of their life were justified and considered righteous, there would still be some sin nature, so that everyone would still deserve death but for Grace.

 

[dadof10]

Here he's speaking directly to the whole lump--the real church--and they have leaven in them. So much so he calls these brethren (not the unbelievers among them) infants in Christ (not infants not in Christ)

You are missing the entire analogy. The leaven is not "in them", but in their midst.

"You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst." (1Co 5:2 NASB)

He is writing specifically about this one person who "has his father’s wife".

"I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." (1Co 5:5-7 NASB)

He is obviously talking about "cleaning out" the "such a one". He is the leaven, not personal sin or anything the "brethren" have "in them".

After talking in depth to the Corinthian "brethren" about not associating with public sinners, he then concludes:

"REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." (v.13)

This entire chapter is devoted to the condemnation of this man's behavior and the Corinthians acceptance of it, not about any personal sin within the believer.

So it's plainly obvious he's not talking to the pollution of false brethren among them as you claim.

That's all this chapter is about, this one man and how the Corinthians are accepting of his public sin.

He says "You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead" in reference to how the Corinthians are accepting the "man", then "Your boasting is not good" also in reference to how the Corinthians are handling him, right before he starts the "leaven/lump" metaphor. He says "clean out the old leaven" and "remove the wicked man from among yourselves". It couldn't be any more clear.

He's addressing the actual believing church, calling them brothers 'in Christ'. And he says they have the leaven of jealousy and strife.

Yet, legally speaking, he says they are unleavened and are perfect before God. So, despite their sin, which they are still in, their unleavened perfection still stands. He said so. Their sinning did not remove that so that they need to be re-justified.

This is what your entire argument hinges on, that "unleavened" here equals "legally...perfect before God". I still don't buy that the "leaven" is personal sin instead of the one, specific, public sinner, but can you tell me where you get the idea that "unleavened" means "perfect before God"?

We see another illustration of this concept of being always perfectly justified before God despite the stain of our sins here:

"8 Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.”10 Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”" (John 13:8-10 NASB italics in orig.)

Peter doesn't need a whole bath all over again. He only needs his feet washed. The bath is justification. The washing of the feet is the stain of our daily sin that doesn't necessitate an entire re-washing (re-justification) of the believer. Note, Jesus did distinguish between the truly washed, but stained, Apostles, and the Apostle that was stained, but was not washed, Judas.

If this were true, you have Jesus saying that a justified person, if he doesn't have his "daily sins" washed, will "have no part with" Jesus. How could a person "have no part with" Him, yet still be considered justified? You have Jesus saying that if your sins remain, you will lose your justification.

For your understanding of 'unleavened' to be correct, the Apostles would not even need their feet washed, or else they would be in the same category as Judas, representing the leaven that is in the lump.

Kind of a mixed metaphor here. Let's just stick with one at a time...

 

[dadof10]

Perhaps one should consider that justification or righteousness doesn't have to cover the whole person, but might only concern one aspect of their life. For all the good done, no matter how many aspects of their life were justified and considered righteous, there would still be some sin nature, so that everyone would still deserve death but for Grace.

Do you think that's the definition of "justified", removal of the "sin nature"? Have you read the OP? Do you agree that Abraham was justified twice, once in Gen. 12 and once in Gen. 15?

 

[pie-man]

I see no problem with the verses from Genesis suggesting that Abraham was justified twice. Like others have shared, I think each time we act in faith we are justified. But, like others have also shared, I think that it's not a case of once justified, always justified. I don't see that being taught by Jesus, or his disciples.

I was reminded of this verse from Jesus in Matthew 12:36-37, where he says, ''But I say unto you, that every idle word than men shall speak they shall give account for in the day of judgment. For by thy words you shall be justified, and by thy words you shall be condemned''. It came to mind because of the word 'justified'. If our justification was a one time deal that we can't lose, why would God then need to keep account of our words? Unless, our Ultimate justification comes on the day of Judgment, when God says, ''Good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord''.

As Jesus said, ''He who endures to the end shall be saved''.

 

[smaller]

Perhaps one should consider that justification or righteousness doesn't have to cover the whole person, but might only concern one aspect of their life. For all the good done, no matter how many aspects of their life were justified and considered righteous, there would still be some sin nature, so that everyone would still deserve death but for Grace.

Very very true. Scripture does present that every last one of us is an internal compilation of both good and evil, period, end of conversation. There is no person who has had their "internal evil" justified by God in Christ NOR have any, by their external actions or "choices", eradicated the existence of evil within themselves.

We are called to "rule" over this evil internal quotient, not deny that it is there, not trying to justify it, not trying to make "evil" righteous, as this makes and turns us into liars and hypocrites, and we lose in lying hypocrisy.

Religion can be quite a deception to people who try to perceive or make themselves "only good." This is a basic denial of spiritual reality. There is a serious fantasy involved with people who think they pleased God by "choosing" good, in that they falsely think they eliminated "evil" from their own internal equations. They don't.

No one does.

God Himself has placed every last one of us in this internal condition:

Deut. 30:
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

And very few like or care to step up to the plate of "honesty" preferring to deny that they do have evil present with them that can not in any way be justifed or righteous.

This is one of the distinguishing marks of Christianity, this TRUTH, that all people are internally constructed of both, good, and, evil.

When we are "made" honest, by the Fruit of the Spirit, honesty, then we at least stop lying to ourselves about our own evil conscience, which can not depart the flesh. God Himself has made this an impossibility.

Why honest people fall for the various ploys and attempts of "eradication" of internal evil is a vastly more interesting phenomena that speaks to how deceived followers and adherents are or can be, compared to simple honesty. Honesty will always, by necessity, lead to Grace Alone, given from One Direction, because of the internal reality of evil.

Paul could not have left this mark of honesty any clearer:

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

People who try to wipe this "internal fact" away are wasting their time.

The conscience of every person on earth is subject and subjected to an evil conscience, period, end of conversation. From that point of honesty it is quite easy to mark out who is truthful and who is not.

 

[Drew]

I suggest we (in the church) may have a "tail wagging the dog" thing happening relative to this matter of "justification". More specifically, we have latched on to a meaning for this word whose origin we cannot explain and which likely has only partial connection to the concept of "justification" as used in the Bible. Let me try to illustrate by analogy: for almost everyone (in the west, anyway), the word "God" evokes a certain image which, I suggest, is a caricature of the image presented in the Bible. Thus, we have this image of a bearded "man in the sky" who looks down on us and is generally displeased with what we are up to and will punish some and reward others. In the same way, I will wager that almost everyone's idea of what justification really means is a hodge-podge of things, drawn from all sorts of places.

For one thing, I think it is very dangerous to take a dictionary of the English language, look up the word justification, and then retroject that meaning onto the Biblical texts. I suggest that justification has a very precise Biblical meaning and, in this respect I defer to NT Wright whose studies have led him to conclude that Biblical justification is the declaration that a person is a member of God's true covenant family. So it is not a process. Nor is it the same thing as salvation - people often use justification as it meant the same thing as salvation and I believe almost all scholars agree this is a mistake. According to Wright, the "forensic" (lawcourt) meaning that we often thing is the real meaning of justification is actually a metaphor to explain the more fundamental covenantal sense of this term.

 

[Kidron]

Nope, nice try. That was in the other thread, not this one. In this one you said that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. and (I assume) in Gen. 15:6. That's twice. Here are the questions again:

1) Are you sticking by your contention that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12?

2) Do you believe that Abraham was justified in Gen. 15 when Paul says his faith was "credited to him as righteousness"?

Will you answer this time?

Ive already answered this.
I wrote a BOOK.
I explained that the bible has to be rightly divided through study, and that concerning doctrines, you dont find them explained all in one place, and so it is with Gen 12 and 15.
Gen 12 and 15 correlate with Romans, and Galatians, and Ephesians, and Colossians., etc.

But here is the short version.
God accepts faith, and thereby justifies.
So, whenever Abraham believed, he was justified.
He is not justified twice, or during a process of 4546 justifications.
He is justified once, and i see that He was told to GO, and he went based on Trust, as this is belief.
Later, he offered his boy, but he had already trusted- believed, or he would have have never left the tent.
So, the leaving, and the offering, are both connected to trust/belief, and this what God accepts.
Abraham believed God and God accepted his faith and GAVE him Righteousness.
Works didnt make Abraham righteousness, GOD made him Righteous, so, try to get that., as if you dont, you have not understood Salvation or Grace.
Pauline theology = "his FAITH is counted for RIGHTEOUSNESS".
So, the confusion here on this thread or any like it is always based on someone not understanding that
Righteousness is given as a Gift from God that justifies, and the Righteousness is a completed situation, that happens once,
when a person has Faith in God <> the Gospel., understanding the purpose of the Cross., and BELIEVES IT and is born again without water.
Its not a process that God uses to give Righteousness,.... its a GIFT.
And you cant become more righteous then God makes you based on the Blood atoning for your sins, when you are born again, and that is why works or water have nothing to do with this imputation, this "gift of Righteousness".

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think each time we act in faith we are justified.

That is ONE definition of 'justified'. The one James uses:

"show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18 NASB)

"21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 2:21 NASB)

"24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24 NASB)

He is using 'justified' as in Abraham showing the righteousness of his faith through what he did. Paul, on the other hand uses the word 'justified' as in to be made righteous. James is not saying Abraham made himself righteous by his works. The context plainly shows us that is not what he's saying. Besides, if he was, he would be directly contradicting Paul:

"2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (as James said he was?), he had something to boast about—but not before God.
6 David...speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness (justifies) apart from works..." (Romans 4:2,6 NASB)