The Process Of Justification

[dadof10]

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.

Interesting. Would you say, then that the "forensic" or "legal" meaning would be more like an adoption than a "judgement"? I firmly believe that Jesus came to make us truly sons if God by adoption, and I think to read any book of the NT without this in mind is to make a huge mistake. We are living in the New Covenant, which is familial by nature. That's why all the familial language. So when words like "justified" and "righteousness" are used, they need to be interpreted as either metaphorically, or through the prism of family relationship.

 

[Drew]

I

Interesting. Would you say, then that the "forensic" or "legal" meaning would be more like an adoption than a "judgement"? I firmly believe that Jesus came to make us truly sons if God by adoption, and I think to read any book of the NT without this in mind is to make a huge mistake. We are living in the New Covenant, which is familial by nature. That's why all the familial language. So when words like "justified" and "righteousness" are used, they need to be interpreted as either metaphorically, or through the prism of family relationship.

Before I get to the question in your first sentence, I wish to strongly agree with this business about justification being about "family". I think this is clear from many places in both Testaments - "justification" as this term is used Biblically cannot be isolated to a matter of declaring an individual to be "in the right". This is why the view presented by Kidron and many others is a "sub-Biblical" view - it focuses on the matter of "getting righteousness", which we do indeed get (although I disagree with those like Kidron who think that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us), but it's not the whole picture. Biblical justification is unavoidably communitarian in nature - it is about being declared a member of God' "true" covenant family (which also involves being declared "in the right").

Now to your question: I think that there is indeed a "judgment" aspect of justification in the sense that we the members of God's true covenant family are given a status "righteousness".

Now to get to something else: You and I agree that 'good works' matter in respect to final salvation (or at least I know I believe this and I believe you do as well). Let me tell you how I think this works, and in the process I will introduce the "eschatological" dimension of justification: When, in the present, a person believes in Jesus, they are given the Spirit that will produce the good works that will be the basis for final salvation (as per Romans 2:6-7, a text that many here do backflips to deal with). Since the Spirit is guaranteed to do those works, unless the believer loses faith and spurns the promptings of the Spirit, God can declare today (at the point of belief) that we are "righteous" members of the covenant family as a kind of advance anticipation of is clearly a good works judgment in the future that results in the award of eternal life.

 

[Sinthesis]

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?

• I didn't say 'justified' was the removal of the sin nature.
• Yes
• Yes, but justified doesn't mean he was saved, only that his actions were correct given his motivation.

 

[Drew]

Hello dadof10:

Do you really have 10 kids? If so, that's really quite remarkable.

Anyhoo, I believe you see justification as a process. In light of what I say in post 102, do you think it's at least possible that justification is a "one-timer" but certainly not in the sense that Kidron, for example, sees it. Per post 102, I believe we can see justification as the "advance declaration" that those who place faith in Jesus will be found, by the evidence of their good works, to be genuine members of the covenant family and therefore to be saved. In short, "one-time" justification is consistent with taking Romans 2:6-7 seriously, as some posters here clearly do not.

On a related matter: If certain other posters read this post, they may well counter-argue as follows: If justification is the advance declaration of a final works-based test to see if you really are a true member of the family, and if you (Drew and dadof10) believe we can "fall away" and be lost, you have set up a contradiction because in some cases, the advance declaration will turn out to be wrong.

The problem with this (and I have talked about this in another post) is that it entails an unstated assumption that writers of scripture are writing a precise mathematical formulation. Consider this analogy: Doctors all the time will say that those who get the measles vaccine are protected from getting the measles. Now, I will bet that there are rare exceptions where people who get the vaccine also get measles. Does that make the doctor inconsistent? Not really - he is speaking in less than perfectly precise terms and if he tried to be perfectly precise he would be adding a bazillion qualifications to everything he says.

Same thing here: yes people can fall away, but it is nevertheless true that the normal pattern is that God can declare you justified in the present because it is almost certainly true that, on the last day, you will be one of those who did not fall away.

This may not be all that clear, perhaps I can say more later.

 

[dadof10]

I

Before I get to the question in your first sentence, I wish to strongly agree with this business about justification being about "family". I think this is clear from many places in both Testaments - "justification" as this term is used Biblically cannot be isolated to a matter of declaring an individual to be "in the right". This is why the view presented by Kidron and many others is a "sub-Biblical" view - it focuses on the matter of "getting righteousness", which we do indeed get (although I disagree with those like Kidron who think that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us), but it's not the whole picture. Biblical justification is unavoidably communitarian in nature - it is about being declared a member of God' "true" covenant family (which also involves being declared "in the right").

Now to your question: I think that there is indeed a "judgment" aspect of justification in the sense that we the members of God's true covenant family are given a status "righteousness".

I do too. However, I think it's more of an adoption proceeding, where we are "declared" to be adopted and less of (as opposed to "not") a courtroom setting where we are "declared" innocent. There is "judgement" within the doctrine of justification, it's just not the only aspect there, even though some only speak in these terms.

Now to get to something else: You and I agree that 'good works' matter in respect to final salvation (or at least I know I believe this and I believe you do as well). Let me tell you how I think this works, and in the process I will introduce the "eschatological" dimension of justification: When, in the present, a person believes in Jesus, they are given the Spirit that will produce the good works that will be the basis for final salvation (as per Romans 2:6-7, a text that many here do backflips to deal with). Since the Spirit is guaranteed to do those works, unless the believer loses faith and spurns the promptings of the Spirit, God can declare today (at the point of belief) that we are "righteous" members of the covenant family as a kind of advance anticipation of is clearly a good works judgment in the future that results in the award of eternal life.

Sure, that sounds about right. Free will is still present in your explanation, as is loss of our "declaration of righteousness" and eventually salvation if we throw it away through disobedience. Eternal Life, if we "patiently continue" in obedience. Past, present and future tenses of justification are spoken of in Scripture, so this is the only way to see it, I think. Because we are adopted into the family doesn't mean we can't reject our Father and cut ourselves off...

 

[dadof10]

I didn't say 'justified' was the removal of the sin nature.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that's what you meant by this:
"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"

It seemed like you were saying that some aspects of people's lives are "justified and considered righteous", wiping out the "sin nature", but that in the other aspects, not touched by justification and righteousness, the sin nature would remain. Do you mean that when some aspects are "justified", the sin nature is minimized?

Yes
Yes, but justified doesn't mean he was saved, only that his actions were correct given his motivation.

So then Abraham (and we, by extension), can be justified more than once in the same day, ostensibly millions of times throughout our lives? Does "justified" mean God declaring our actions are correct in light of our motivations, or am I misunderstanding you again?

 

[dadof10]

Hello dadof10:

Do you really have 10 kids? If so, that's really quite remarkable.

Anyhoo, I believe you see justification as a process. In light of what I say in post 102, do you think it's at least possible that justification is a "one-timer" but certainly not in the sense that Kidron, for example, sees it. Per post 102, I believe we can see justification as the "advance declaration" that those who place faith in Jesus will be found, by the evidence of their good works, to be genuine members of the covenant family and therefore to be saved. In short, "one-time" justification is consistent with taking Romans 2:6-7 seriously, as some posters here clearly do not.

From my prospective, initial justification happens at baptism, so if a person gets baptized then dies, justification is a "one-timer". So, yes, it's possible, just like it's possible to be saved by faith alone (like the Thief on the cross), it's just not the norm, as you say below...

On a related matter: If certain other posters read this post, they may well counter-argue as follows: If justification is the advance declaration of a final works-based test to see if you really are a true member of the family, and if you (Drew and dadof10) believe we can "fall away" and be lost, you have set up a contradiction because in some cases, the advance declaration will turn out to be wrong.

The problem with this (and I have talked about this in another post) is that it entails an unstated assumption that writers of scripture are writing a precise mathematical formulation. Consider this analogy: Doctors all the time will say that those who get the measles vaccine are protected from getting the measles. Now, I will bet that there are rare exceptions where people who get the vaccine also get measles. Does that make the doctor inconsistent? Not really - he is speaking in less than perfectly precise terms and if he tried to be perfectly precise he would be adding a bazillion qualifications to everything he says.

Same thing here: yes people can fall away, but it is nevertheless true that the normal pattern is that God can declare you justified in the present because it is almost certainly true that, on the last day, you will be one of those who did not fall away.

This may not be all that clear, perhaps I can say more later.

LOL...I know what you mean. Same thing has happened to me regarding "works of the law". I argue that "works" means specifically "works of the Law". During the conversation, I mention that Jesus told the Rich man that keeping the commandments obtains eternal life. "Aha..." they say "the commandments are in the Law. Contradiction!!!" I simply explain that there is no need to be so legalistic. Obviously "works" doesn't include "keeping the commandments", then. "Well, then what parts of the law is Paul talking about?" I answer, "I don't know, but I know he's not talking about the Commandments, that's obvious. Because I think 'works' means 'works of the law' does not mean there are no exceptions". There can be exceptions, and this goes back to my view that we are in a covenant family, not a courtroom.

 

[dadof10]

Ive already answered this.

No, really you haven't. You have told me what justification is, what faith is, how we are justified, that Gen 12 and 15 are the same and that I would see this if I "rightly divided the word of truth", but you didn't answer the questions. They are simple yes or no questions. I'll post them again. Feel free to "write a book" after your answer if you want, but please answer the questions.

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"?

 

[Kidron]

No, really you haven't. You have told me what justification is, what faith is, how we are justified, that Gen 12 and 15 are the same and that I would see this if I "rightly divided the word of truth", but you didn't answer the questions. They are simple yes or no questions. I'll post them again. Feel free to "write a book" after your answer if you want, but please answer the questions.

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"?

When Abraham "believed", he was at that second justified.
So, do you think he believed when he was told to "go"?, or do you believe he believed when he was told to "kill"?
I believed he believed when he was told to go.
And the willingness to kill didnt justify him as he had already believed before he was willing to do the deed.
so, its "by faith Abraham" is justified, exactly as we are today.
This is why he is referenced in Romans, by Paul, as the "Father of all them who believe", and not the Father of all them who do works.

 

[dadof10]

When Abraham "believed", he was at that second justified.
So, do you think he believed when he was told to "go"?, or do you believe he believed when he was told to "kill"?

Both.

I believed he believed when he was told to go.

Ok, that answers the first question. You are sticking by your contention that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. I agree. Now, do you agree with Paul and I that he was also justified in Gen. 15:6, when his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness"? If so, that makes two justifications.

 

[Kidron]

Both.


Ok, that answers the first question. You are sticking by your contention that Abraham was justified in Gen. 12. I agree. Now, do you agree with Paul and I that he was also justified in Gen. 15:6, when his faith was "reckoned to him as righteousness"? If so, that makes two justifications.

-
Paul is simply explaining how justification works when he says...."reckoned to him".
Paul is showing that its God who justifies, based on our FAITH, and not based on water baptism or good deeds or sacrificing your child, or keeping the faith, or taking communion, or any physical thing we do with our bodies.

 

[dadof10]

-
Paul is simply explaining how justification works when he says...."reckoned to him".
Paul is showing that its God who justifies, based on our FAITH, and not based on water baptism or good deeds or sacrificing your child, or keeping the faith, or taking communion, or any physical thing we do with our bodies.

Ok, then he wasn't justified in Gen. 15:6 because he had already been justified in Gen. 12, and you can't be justified twice? Do I have your view right, now?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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'.

In the Matthew 12:36-37 passage you cite, it's easy to see that 'justified' is being used in regard to it's 'showing' use, not it's 'making' use (see https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1344&t=KJV).

On the Day of Judgment, our speech, our behavior, even our thoughts will be used to show whether or not we have been transformed into new creations by faith in Christ's forgiveness all by itself, and therefore, eligible to be saved on the Day of Wrath, not destroyed.

To say our speech, thoughts, and behavior MAKE us righteous in preparation for the Day of Judgment is to teach the justification by works gospel that Paul says can not justify. And it can't justify for obvious reasons: No one can act perfectly righteous, so there is always behavior and thoughts and speech that will condemn us in such a gospel, and it's often possible to appear righteous but not really be righteous, and righteous behavior has zero power to remove past transgression.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If our justification was a one time deal that we can't lose, why would God then need to keep account of our words?

Why? As evidence of our faith in Christ, or the lack of it. For example, people born again by faith in the forgiveness of Christ (and continuing to be born again) don't go around knowingly and willingly denying Christ and the power of his forgiveness. But unbelievers surely do.

Unless, our Ultimate justification comes on the day of Judgment, when God says, ''Good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord''.

Our ultimate justification does come on the Day of Judgment. But not in regard to making us righteous (that happens through faith all by itself), but in regard to showing us to be righteous at the final time God measures our faith in Christ by what we do, think, and say. This Judgment is explained in Matthew 25:31-46 NASB by Jesus.

Few in the Protestant Church have been told the truth about that Day and instead have been deceitfully and erroneously told it doesn't matter if they have a faith that succumbs to doubt and disbelief and does not work because, supposedly, salvation has utterly nothing to do with works. Oblivious to the fact that the faith that justifies all by itself is measured and validated by what it does. Just as a swim in the pool is validated by the fact you are soaking wet (if you aren't wet then we know that you are not in the pool as claimed).

 

[smaller]

Abraham wasn't any different in regards to the below than any believer:

Galatians 5:
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

There is no way to resolve "justification" or "righteousness" to that which was/is and remains contrary to the Spirit. And everyone bears this contrary condition, regardless, as long as they live in flesh, until the "flesh" dies in reality. We only "account" it that way, presently, when we are still alive on earth.

Every believer bears this contrariness in their flesh. There is no resolution for the flesh and the lusts that it is and remains subject and subjected to. It is not righteous. It is not justified.

There is no "process" that will resolve this matter.

This is the exact teaching that Paul demonstrates in Galatians 4, showing that Abraham had 2 children, Ishmael and Isaac, showing this to be a produce of Abraham himself.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Abraham wasn't any different in regards to the below than any believer:

Galatians 5:
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

There is no way to resolve "justification" or "righteousness" to that which was/is and remains contrary to the Spirit. And everyone bears this contrary condition, regardless, as long as they live in flesh, until the "flesh" dies in reality. We only "account" it that way, presently, when we are still alive on earth.

Every believer bears this contrariness in their flesh. There is no resolution for the flesh and the lusts that it is and remains subject and subjected to. It is not righteous. It is not justified.

There is no "process" that will resolve this matter.

This is the exact teaching that Paul demonstrates in Galatians 4, showing that Abraham had 2 children, Ishmael and Isaac, showing this to be a produce of Abraham himself.

Let's not discourage believers from having the faith and perseverance to attain to the fourth type of soil Jesus spoke about:

"11“Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. 12 “Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved. 13 “Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away. 14 “The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 “But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance." (Luke 8:11-15 NASB bold mine)

We should not teach believers that they are doomed to be slaves to the worries, riches, and pleasures of this life and as a result will never bring forth the fruit of the kingdom. That would be doing the work of the evil one and snatching away the truth about this matter from their hearts so that they do not mature. I'm pretty sure that work has no reward in the kingdom.

 

[smaller]

Let's not discourage believers from having the faith and perseverance to attain to the fourth type of soil Jesus spoke about:

Whether it's taught or not, we all bear the facts of contrariness to the Spirit in our flesh. There is no getting around this by any measures of theology, taught or ignored (which is what most believers do.)

Galatians 5:
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

It is an entire waste of time to try to remedy this fact, making them both the same. They are contrary and will remain so. The flesh can not be justified or righteous, as it is contrary to the Spirit.

And, I might add, it will never submit to this fact either. It can't.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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".

I agree that he is speaking corporately to the church at Corinth. But how can the church be unleavened as a whole if no one individual within in the church is unleavened? So the analogy is entirely applicable to the individual believer. Passover represents being saved through the offering of the Passover sacrifice, who is Christ. And the Feast of Unleavened Bread immediately following Passover (Leviticus 23:5-6) represents the removal of leaven (sin) from the lump of ground grain consecrated to the Lord each of us now are--personally and corporately speaking.

The point being, There is no reason to become the consecrated lump of dough over and over again. What is necessary is that the once consecrated lump of dough show itself over and over and over again to be freed from the pollution of leaven.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

My point was, how can you automatically assign the sinning Corinthian chap to that of an unbeliever? Isn't it possible that he's an actual believer who, like you and me sometimes, has the leaven of sin working it's way through his legally unleavened body and needs God's fatherly discipline to drive it out? You see, your doctrine only adds up if you confine the leaven in the lump to unbelievers, but simple observation (and a little honesty) shows us all believers have the leaven of sin overtaking them at one time or another.

This is what your entire argument hinges on, that "unleavened" here equals "legally...perfect before God".

How can the following not be a LEGAL declaration of righteousness and an actual behavioral righteousness in a person as you claim?

"14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NASB)

How can one be perfect, yet be in the process of being made holy? That is impossible in your doctrine, but that is exactly what the Bible says is happening, and exactly what my doctrine says is happening. We are made perfect in God's sight, legally speaking, by the Passover sacrifice of Christ, then we move toward behavioral perfection by driving out, and keeping out, the leaven of sin in our lives.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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?

The same way a person who's already had a bath only needs to wash his feet. The bath represents your one-time born again experience:

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:5-6 NASB).

The person who has had 'the washing of rebirth and renewal' doesn't need to do that all over again. Hes' already clean:

"10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean." (John 13:10)

He only needs to keep his feet clean. The feet represents the believers walk.
In time, a persistent decision to not wash one's feet will in fact result in losing your place in Christ. Not because your feet aren't clean, but because they are unclean because of unbelief. The branches that are removed from the tree are removed on the basis of unbelief, not works (Romans 11:20 NASB)

You have Jesus saying that if your sins remain, you will lose your justification.

ONLY if that unrepentant sin represents a trampling and rejection of, and loss of faith in, the blood of Christ. The sin is only the evidence of no longer having the faith that justifies. Sin in and of itself does not rob you of your one-time 'washing and renewal by the Holy Spirit', that is, your justification. The unbelief that motivated the sin does. And it's impossible to become re-justified after losing your one-time washing and justification. And I always let God tell any one person whether or not they have lost their justification. That's something only the individual and God can know for sure. I'm not in the business of throwing around that kind of serious condemnation among people who struggle with their belief in God.