The Worker Vs. The Non-worker Who Believes

[Mitspa]

Not that I know of. She was justified (MADE righteous) by her faith in the promise of a seed given to Abraham. How do we know she had faith in the promises made to Abraham? By her giving aid and comfort to the people sent out ahead of the coming judgment. Rahab is an illustration that James uses to show us that the faith that saves is the faith that acts in accordance with what it believes. Too many people view it too literally. The story of Rahab is a type and figure of how God's invading army will one day storm the earth and execute judgment on it's idolatrous and adulterous inhabitants. Until then he has sent Some of us harlots hear the message of the coming invasion and switch sides giving aid and comfort to the prophets and teachers God has sent to warn the earth of what's coming. Those who do that will be spared on the Day of the Invasion. How they act shows us what they believe about the coming judgment.


EVERYBODY is made righteous (justified) the way Rahab was--by faith in the seed promised to Abraham and his descendants. For us, this far down the pike, our faith rests very specifically in the promised seed and His finished work on the cross. Faith in the Promised Seed is how we are declared (MADE) righteous. The obedience that stems from faith in the Promised Son is how we are also declared (SHOWEN to be) righteous. Not many people know that 'justify' has two distinct Biblical meanings.

So rahab was justified apart from the law, as was Abraham for He was long before moses! But your point is that the exact same Greek word used throughout the New Testament, really means something else? Let me guess? you and those in your group are the ONLY ones who understand what the word really means? That one cannot trust the scriptures to have a constant meaning of the term, but we must now trust in your understanding of what the word means? I am in doubt of my ability to discuss the scriptures with you in an honest way, if you get to decide the meaning of words?

Is Strongs and Thayer acceptable in your veiw? or do you have an ability to understand the meaning of words that goes beyond their limited knowledge?

 

[heymikey80]

He also said that faith without works is dead. Whether someone can see you or not, faith alone will not justify.

That's really not the case -- in the proper sense of faith alone saving us.

The idea has zilch to do with a lonely faith. The idea has everything to do with the absence of works as being something God regards for salvation.

I've said it enough, but I guess it needs saying again: the faith that saves produces good works. God even intends such (Ep 2:10).

But the question inevitably turns to whether God respects the work or the faith. Paul is adamant that God respects the faith, not the works. In fact he impetuously embraces the title of this thread: "the one who does not work but believes, his faith is counted as righteousness" -- Rom 4:5 ESV . That statement is flatly clear.

James' statements are not nearly so clear. James is talking about how we consider people justified, how we consider people of faith to be useful. And James' conclusion is, yeah, we consider people justified based on what they do; we consider people useful because of what they do; and yes, people are dead who don't have works. But they're considered dead as a result of lack of saving faith having any effect on their actions. It's not the actions themselves, it's that they're indicators of what's causing them.

 

[heymikey80]

Ooooo, nice try! SURPRISE...your claim is that "answering in good conscience" is the same exact thing as faith, and this is what Peter is trying to get through to us? WOW, I didn't see this interpretation coming...

"...Already answered Him in good conscience"? Which translation is this from, the MSV, Mikey's Standard version?

That "dia" means "through", only through, not "by" is a HUGE deal to you, yet you are perfectly fine interpreting the above verse as "already answered",

No. I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. I pointed out that the person who already relied on God had already given a conscientious answer. Exactly how else could it be?

Does someone come to rely on God without answering Him in good conscience? You tell me.

It seems quite shallow to consider otherwise. How can someone rely on God for salvation and yet ... not answer Him conscientiously about Christ (check the rest of Peter's sentence)? How is it that would be saving faith?

It wouldn't.

It's a great argument, dadof10. All it takes is a clear hearing without attempts to tear it down. The believer is the one who answers God in good conscience for salvation. No one else does.

 

[dadof10]

Its clear that as he related that Abrahams faith was made complete when he acted in faith Verses 23 through 24
verse 25 LIKEWISE Rahab! Likewise means IN THE SAME MANNER! you cannot seperate what is said of Abraham and truth of his LIVING faith from the NEXT VERSE!

The question is, the same way as what? Here are the verses directly preceding James' handling of Rahab:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way...

James says that a man is not justified by faith alone, then in the very next breath says "in the same way..." His intention is obvious to anyone without a bias. These are the simple, straightforward words of Scripture. My doctrine is not defeated (whatever that means) by the actual words of Scripture, it is bolstered when Scripture says EXACTLY what I believe.

 

[dadof10]

If being justified doesn't mean 'being declared (made) righteous', and it doesn't mean 'being declared (shown to be) righteous', then what could it possibly mean to you?

The forum is not a big thing for me anymore. I'm just chiming in as I can. I will get to everything you brought up in your post in time. You do need to clarify what you say being 'justified' means if, as it appears, it does not mean either of the two definitions I just provided. Until you do, too much more discussion may prove to mean very little.

In the mean time I challenge you to do a reread of James 1 and 2 to see that James' argument has everything to do with obedience of the 'royal law of scripture' found in the law. It plainly has everything to do with the way a person is justified (shown to be righteous). The very example he uses to show that faith must be an active, living faith to be able to save is 'love your neighbor as yourself' and a very specific lawful command (the reference of which escapes me at the moment, lol). But since the leadership of the early church decided we didn't need the law anymore few know James is indeed talking about the very law of Moses.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

"A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace."

Note: "Justification is the work of God alone" yet we must cooperate with His Grace, in the same way YOU must cooperate with Grace when you are called to faith. You MUST accept Jesus (an action) or you are not saved. This accepting is a Grace that must be cooperated with.

You look at this concept as applying only to faith, I look at it as a way of life applying to every action I do. Either way, it's the same concept.

 

[Mitspa]

The question is, the same way as what? Here are the verses directly preceding James' handling of Rahab:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way...

James says that a man is not justified by faith alone, then in the very next breath says "in the same way..." His intention is obvious to anyone without a bias. These are the simple, straightforward words of Scripture. My doctrine is not defeated (whatever that means) by the actual words of Scripture, it is bolstered when Scripture says EXACTLY what I believe.

yes! you have attempted to establish works to justifiy! And no man is justified by works but by a living faith.
FOR THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.

No moral element can be added because rahab was not moral in any way except through her faith and actions of faith.
Abraham is the very picture of faith and those who justified by faith.
Good works are product of the living Spirit. Real faith will release real life from all who have life.
A tree that bears no fruit is a cursed tree!
Now some attempt to ignore ALL of the New Testament and establish works of law and religion by these scriptures?
If one looks at the example of rahab that was given for the "works" that defeats the very discussion of law and religion.

What it says is that faith was "sunergie" Working together with works , to be made complete.
So again I say any who attempt to bring the moral element of the law in as a justifiy work are defeated by rahab and Abraham.
I think just as when some hear or see the word "Righteous" they always think in terms of the law! Just as when some of you, because you are under law, hear the term "works" you always relate it to works of law! But the scriptures do not agree with this understanding.

James and other Apostles submitted to Pauls doctrines and gospel, as all men must! THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. is not challenged but upheld by these scriptures, James makes the point that a living faith will have life.

Now what works are you attempting to affirm? The works of Christ? And where do you claim that these works are presented in scripture?

Again you are defeated in your doctrines either way!

 

[heymikey80]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

"A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace."

Note: "Justification is the work of God alone" yet we must cooperate with His Grace, in the same way YOU must cooperate with Grace when you are called to faith. You MUST accept Jesus (an action) or you are not saved. This accepting is a Grace that must be cooperated with.

You look at this concept as applying only to faith, I look at it as a way of life applying to every action I do. Either way, it's the same concept.

Um, but that use of the term is certainly not what Paul was referring to.

In First Century common usage "justification" meant "being declared not guilty", as in a court of law today.

 

[Mitspa]

Um, but that use of the term is certainly not what Paul was referring to.

In First Century common usage "justification" meant "being declared not guilty", as in a court of law today.

This is very interesting? That some think to change the meaning of the term "justified" Which very well may be the most important biblical term of scripture! Yes when your doctrines are proved wrong in clear scripture, just change the meaning of the words to match your false doctrine! I think Paul warns against those who would handle the word of truth with such deceptions. It is always the same ones who desire to be teachers of the law, and know not what they are saying or trying to affirm.

satans first lie and his continued lie is "did God really say" well justified really dont mean what it says?

So Abraham being "justified" thoughout scripture has different meanings at different times? Let me guess who gets to decide when it means one thing and what it means? You who cannot defend your doctrines by clear and evident scripture!

This is not a game, and some of you will not enjoy judgment day as much as you enjoy twisting the Word of truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So rahab was justified apart from the law, as was Abraham for He was long before moses!

Insofar as one definition of 'justify', yes, they were justified apart from works of the law.

But your point is that the exact same Greek word used throughout the New Testament, really means something else?

My point is the exact same Greek word means two different things, and is used in those two different ways in the Bible.

Click the link to see how Strong's shows the word is used (and click on the Vines link for the definition).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1344&t=KJV

You will see that to 'justify' in the Bible means to both make righteous and show to be righteous. Paul says we are declared (made) righteous by our faith in Christ's cleansing blood...all by itself apart from the merit of work (nobody can make themselves clean by doing righteous things). James on the other hand says we are declared (shown to be) righteous by what we do--specifically by obeying the royal law of scripture 'love your neighbor as yourself'. We are made righteous apart from righteous work. We are shown to be righteous when we uphold and keep the righteous requirements of the law.

Let me guess? you and those in your group are the ONLY ones who understand what the word really means?

Group? If you mean all of us who have been taught the truth that the church has suppressed, that 'justify' actually has two meanings and that we are indeed justified (shown to righteous) when we reach out in love to others as the law commands, then, 'yes', we are the only one's who understand the Biblical use of the word. I myself learned about it in another forum a few years back.

That one cannot trust the scriptures to have a constant meaning of the term, but we must now trust in your understanding of what the word means?

Go through the extensive list in the Strong's link I provided of where the word 'justify' is used in the NT and you can see how Strong's came up with it's list of ways the word is used. Those different ways support the definitions of the word that Vine's provides.

I am in doubt of my ability to discuss the scriptures with you in an honest way, if you get to decide the meaning of words?

Is Vine's and Strong's good enough to decide the meanings of words? Even a secular dictionary verifies that 'justify' has more than one, even two, meanings: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justified

Is Strongs and Thayer acceptable in your veiw? or do you have an ability to understand the meaning of words that goes beyond their limited knowledge?

Okay, good. Strong's is acceptable to you. I'm confident you will learn from all this just I have.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So then your position is that when one has done these works that bring them into agreement with the law of moses that they are justified?

Yes...justified as in SHOWN to be righteous, not MADE righteous, by coming into agreement with the law, specifically the law 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

That they are kinda justfied by faith but then they must complete their faith by keeping the moral standard of the law? This is your position?

Yes, that is my position because that is what the Bible teaches. But don't misunderstand, completing your faith by fulfilling the law 'love your neighbor as yourself' doesn't make you righteous. It shows you to have the righteousness that Paul says comes by faith apart from keeping the law. Understand?

First I have two questions? what part of the law? every jot and tittle as the Lord declared? or just the Ten Commandments?

Faith fulfills ALL of the law. Some of it gets fulfilled literally by our faith in Christ's blood, while some of it gets fulfilled spiritually by our faith in Christ.

The ceremonial law gets fulfilled spiritually (if that's really a good word to use to describe it, for Christ's blood is indeed very literal and was very literally offered up). The moral law--how we treat other people--on the other hand continues as an ongoing debt of law that we ourselves fulfill (Romans 13:8), but a requirement of law that still gets fulfilled by the faith in Christ within us that motivates that obedience. Which is what Paul is referring to when he says "faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6 NIV).

And have some of them past away?

'No longer needed', or 'obsolete' and thus 'laid aside' is a better way to express what actually happened to the parts of the law that no longer require an ongoing literal fulfillment but which got fulfilled (satisfied) one time for all time when we placed our faith in Christ, and remain fulfilled as long as we persevere in our faith and trust in Christ.

is it now the 9 commandments or 8 commandments?

I presume you mean as far as their literal fulfillment. Nine get satisfied literally through our obedience produced by our faith (Romans 1:5 NIV). The Sabbath got fulfilled once and for all when we placed our faith in Christ and entered into God's appointed Rest, Jesus Christ. Amen, amen, and amen. May he be forever praised.

Also RAHAB THE HARLOT! she does not seem very moral and kept NO COMMANDMENT by which to be justified.

As far as the law, correct.

Remember, she is an illustration of how unholy people (in her case a harlot) are MADE righteous by their faith in the promises made to Abraham (for she confesses, “I know that the Lord has given this land to you..." Joshua 2:8 NIV1984), just as Abraham was declared (MADE) righteous by his faith in that promise made to him.

James is teaching us that we are not only justified (made) righteous by faith but we are also justified (shown to be righteous) by what we do (which in her case has little to do with any law--it's an illustration). He uses what Rahab and Abraham did as a result of their faith in the promises to illustrate the point. We know they had the faith that justifies (makes righteous) by what they did--"I will show you my faith by what I do" (James 2:18 NIV1984).

By the way, you are not saying the word for being "justified" is a different word are you? You just think it has a different meaning?

I don't think it has two distinct meanings in scripture, I know it does. The context bears it out. And Strong's and Vine's teaches that. If you want to argue the point you have no choice but to acknowledge that James directly contradicts Paul when he says a man is justified by what he does if you insist that they are using the exact same word in the exact same way and meaning.

I would like to get you to take firm stands on your positions, because it seems as I bring forth scripture in these discussions that folks seem to change their positions.

There's no need for me to bob and weave to protect any sense of pride I might have about what I think about the matter. It has been made firm in my mind through careful thought and examination, so I don't need to adapt it as we go along to protect my pride. But I am definitely willing to adjust any details that I might not understand accurately.

Thus we have those "who do not know what they are trying to affirm"

If I was trying to teach justification through righteous duties as the Judaizers taught that in Paul's day (and some continue to teach to this day) I would indeed be one of those that Paul was talking about in your quote. But as it is I do NOT believe a person can make themselves righteous by performing righteous work (outside of the 'work' of trusting in Christ's blood, of course). But in the church where 'law' is an offensive and forbidden topic what I'm sharing here always gets misunderstood as the Judaizer's argument. Which it hardly is.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Note: "Justification is the work of God alone" yet we must cooperate with His Grace, in the same way YOU must cooperate with Grace when you are called to faith. You MUST accept Jesus (an action) or you are not saved. This accepting is a Grace that must be cooperated with.

Cooperation is not really a good way to describe it but, surely, no one would argue we are not to be in opposition to the grace of God at work in our lives moving us to do righteous things.

A better way to look at it is we have an implicit obligation to act in accordance to that which we say we have placed our trust in. That means if we truly believe that our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ all by itself (for what righteous work, outside of trusting in the blood, can atone for and remove sin guilt?) then it HAS to follow, if that trust is genuine, that a person act like a forgiven person who does not work to secure that forgiveness but trusts in the blood all by itself to do that. (Invariably, some people will erroneously hear this as meaning you don't have to do any works.)

That is why we are also justified by what we do, not just by what we believe. The person who says they trust in God's forgiveness through the blood of Christ but acts as if they don't by trusting in righteous work they have performed (Paul's angle), or by doing no work at all (James' angle) doesn't really trust in God's forgiveness.

You look at this concept as applying only to faith, I look at it as a way of life applying to every action I do. Either way, it's the same concept.

If you're following my discussion with Mitspa you can probably see that I am indeed applying this concept of justification to both faith and 'every action I do'.

Trust (faith) in Christ's blood to remove sin guilt is how we access the grace (the unmerited favor) of that forgiveness and are made righteous before him ("Grace...through faith"--Eph. 2:8 NIV1984 "apart from (the merit of righteous) works"--Romans 4:6).

The obedient work produced by that trust (faith) in Christ's blood (Romans 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 1:3) is how we are shown to have laid hold of God's grace of forgiveness through faith in Christ's blood ("I will show you my faith by what I do"--James 2:18 NIV1984)

 

[Deborah13]

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

I think what James is saying is that if you "vain man" say you have faith then you will have at least some witness to that faith. If you do not then your faith is in words alone and is not a living faith, a faith that is of the heart and spirit, just words.
In no way is he claiming that we are justified unto salvation by works, we are saved by grace through faith but if we say we have this faith we shouldl bear the fruit.
Some people will have obvious changes immediately others they will gradually grow into the faith that they have been given. It's like Paul telling them to grow and mature beyond the milk of the gospel.
Some people never grow, their faith is limited to their own salvation and not much else. Others will do great works for God.

I see Abraham as a man who had a true relationship with God. He loved God and trusted Him. Therefore his faith was in full operation even to trusting God for the life of his son.
I see Rahab as a woman who did not have a personal relationship with God at all, she had heard...and believed that the Israelites would be victorious and because of this she played the odds. Which side should she be on in order to save her own life. She chose welll.
Which reminds me of the different reasons people are led to receive Jesus. Some are witnessed to about God's great love for them and they receive that love, repent and accept Him. Others are witnessed to about how they are sinners and they will go to hell if they don't repent and they too receive and are saved.

 

[Mitspa]

Insofar as one definition of 'justify', yes, they were justified apart from works of the law.



My point is the exact same Greek word means two different things, and is used in those two different ways in the Bible.

Click the link to see how Strong's shows the word is used (and click on the Vines link for the definition).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1344&t=KJV

You will see that to 'justify' in the Bible means to both make righteous and show to be righteous. Paul says we are declared (made) righteous by our faith in Christ's cleansing blood...all by itself apart from the merit of work (nobody can make themselves clean by doing righteous things). James on the other hand says we are declared (shown to be) righteous by what we do--specifically by obeying the royal law of scripture 'love your neighbor as yourself'. We are made righteous apart from righteous work. We are shown to be righteous when we uphold and keep the righteous requirements of the law.



Group? If you mean all of us who have been taught the truth that the church has suppressed, that 'justify' actually has two meanings and that we are indeed justified (shown to righteous) when we reach out in love to others as the law commands, then, 'yes', we are the only one's who understand the Biblical use of the word. I myself learned about it in another forum a few years back.



Go through the extensive list in the Strong's link I provided of where the word 'justify' is used in the NT and you can see how Strong's came up with it's list of ways the word is used. Those different ways support the definitions of the word that Vine's provides.



Is Vine's and Strong's good enough to decide the meanings of words? Even a secular dictionary verifies that 'justify' has more than one, even two, meanings: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justified




Okay, good. Strong's is acceptable to you. I'm confident you will learn from all this just I have.

Jethro, I have read your post and agree with much your are saying and am a bit confused by your back and forth upon the term justified? Is it your belief that When Paul says the word that he is speaking of a justfication that is not complete in Christ? That his word in regards to Abraham is different than James when He speaks of Abraham?

Also you say rahab was justified apart from the law? as was Abraham? But that a believer must be justifed by keeping a moral section of the law? That you seem to see and Paul and I do not seem to see?

I know that it has been a couple of days for you to respond to my post? Now you throw out so much info that seems to want things both ways? I like to get to one truth at a time and then move forward! That cuts down on a lot of double talk!

Now my first question is what is the difference between justified as used by Paul thoughtout scripture in regards to Abraham and the termed used by James?

also rahab? you say it was an example? of course it was! a real living example of one justified apart from any works or deed or moral element of the law! Thats why James and the Holy Spirit used her! To keep false teachers from attempting to bring the justfication of faith back into the "moral" requirement of the law! There is no way to just cast that aside like it does not matter? James and Holy Spirit are in complete agreement with the epistles of Paul!

By the way? Do you submit to Pauls gospel? that all men will be judged by HIS gospel? That If any man preach another gospel? even an ANGEL FROM HEAVEN! they are cursed?

I have found that many talk in circles? Your post seems to be one big circle of double talk to me! parts of the truth mixed with false doctrine, in such a way as to make it almost impossible to get at the truth of what you are trying to affirm.
So if you would, lets go point by point? and we will see if your doctrines can hold up under the light of His Truth?

 

[heymikey80]

My point is the exact same Greek word means two different things, and is used in those two different ways in the Bible.

Click the link to see how Strong's shows the word is used (and click on the Vines link for the definition).
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1344&t=KJV

The trouble with this is, once the language was surveyed for contemporary use of the term "justification", something odd emerged. Bauer / Arndt / Gingrich pointed it out in their groundbreaking survey. The term "justification" itself had fallen out of use as made righteous, that is, as being a process of making someone who they ought to be.

So any native speaker of First Century Greek is not going to use such a word for the process of making someone righteous.

Now, there's a hypothesis that James wasn't using Greek, but that the letter is actually sermon notes, originally in Aramaic. If so, it's possible that James could be using the term "make righteous". That doesn't happen to fit this situation, but it's likely it'll be argued.

The problem is with Paul. He clearly wrote in Greek: his letters' wordplay and allusions, alliterations, rhymes, they're all Greek.

They're also Koine, common Greek. Attic Greek, three hundred years earlier, still used "make righteous" as you're referring to. And certainly Attic Greek is preserved in philosophy texts of the day -- it's sort of "the right Greek", a sort of elite language. Still, Paul's not writing in Attic Greek.

Grant this subtlety, though: "dikaios" is still used for Someone who is fundamentally righteous or just. So God and indeed good daemons are called "dikaios". But it's "justification" as a process of becoming righteous, that is not in use any more.

The term "justification" advanced in common usage just like legal terms in our days for vindication in court. The legal use has replaced the etymological use. We often hear that someone has been found "innocent" by a courtroom. "He's innocent" as the phrase goes. Yet we all know that on real terms, "innocent" does not mean lack of culpability in everything the person does.

In the same way the courtroom declaration "justified" and "justification" have by this time become commonly what their legal terms mean.

 

[Mitspa]

The trouble with this is, once the language was surveyed for contemporary use of the term "justification", something odd emerged. Bauer / Arndt / Gingrich pointed it out in their groundbreaking survey. The term "justification" itself had fallen out of use as made righteous, that is, as being a process of making someone who they ought to be.

So any native speaker of First Century Greek is not going to use such a word for the process of making someone righteous.

Now, there's a hypothesis that James wasn't using Greek, but that the letter is actually sermon notes, originally in Aramaic. If so, it's possible that James could be using the term "make righteous". That doesn't happen to fit this situation, but it's likely it'll be argued.

The problem is with Paul. He clearly wrote in Greek: his letters' wordplay and allusions, alliterations, rhymes, they're all Greek.

They're also Koine, common Greek. Attic Greek, three hundred years earlier, still used "make righteous" as you're referring to. And certainly Attic Greek is preserved in philosophy texts of the day -- it's sort of "the right Greek", a sort of elite language. Still, Paul's not writing in Attic Greek.

Grant this subtlety, though: "dikaios" is still used for Someone who is fundamentally righteous or just. So God and indeed good daemons are called "dikaios". But it's "justification" as a process of becoming righteous, that is not in use any more.

The term "justification" advanced in common usage just like legal terms in our days for vindication in court. The legal use has replaced the etymological use. We often hear that someone has been found "innocent" by a courtroom. "He's innocent" as the phrase goes. Yet we all know that on real terms, "innocent" does not mean lack of culpability in everything the person does.

In the same way the courtroom declaration "justified" and "justification" have by this time become commonly what their legal terms mean.

Thank you heymiky80, I do think some of that helps! but the completed work of Christ as it relates to the believer is so well laid out in scripture and in great detail in Pauls epistles, that the term itself is defined by the truth of who we are IN CHRIST! so when we see the truth of who we are in spirit. The term" justified" is known very well by those who are "spiirtual" Maybe one could say that for those who are yet carnal that they are not yet in the truth of what it means to be "justified" The thing is that the truth of James and his statements are very well understood when one understand the finished work of Christ as revealed in Pauls epistles. The only ones who seem to struggle with james and what he is saying are those who yet see themselves under the law of moses.

This is Why God had it written? All men will be judged by Pauls gospel! And no man is to teach anything contrary to his report! So then the problem is that those who do not understand and will not heed Paul, cannot ever understand the rest of the scriptures in fulnness.

 

[heymikey80]

The term" justified" is known very well by those who are "spiirtual"

I've met a lot of people I consider spiritual, and they're all over the map when it comes to justification. So I'm not sure I could agree with you there.

I do indeed agree with you, the expansion of how we are justified for salvation, in Paul's specific uses in this sense, this expansion is written-out by Paul. It's also strongly related to another legal image, the image of covenant union in Christ.

In fact "justification" is a defining, not a defined, use of the term. It's one word that sets up the courtroom illustration that pervades Paul's descriptions: the Judgment. The whole overarching concept of God's judgment that Paul describes, is an environment of a spiritual courtroom. "Justification" thus fits remarkably well in that family of courtroom terms. Obviously the courtroom is different from human corrupted courts. But that's the imagery.

 

[Mitspa]

I've met a lot of people I consider spiritual, and they're all over the map when it comes to justification. So I'm not sure I could agree with you there.

I do indeed agree with you, the expansion of how we are justified for salvation, in Paul's specific uses in this sense, this expansion is written-out by Paul. It's also strongly related to another legal image, the image of covenant union in Christ.

In fact "justification" is a defining, not a defined, use of the term. It's one word that sets up the courtroom illustration that pervades Paul's descriptions: the Judgment. The whole overarching concept of God's judgment that Paul describes, is an environment of a spiritual courtroom. "Justification" thus fits remarkably well in that family of courtroom terms. Obviously the courtroom is different from human corrupted courts. But that's the imagery.

The scriptures themselves goes to great lengths to descirbe who is "spiritual" is not willy nilly! and I agree that many may think this or that but those who are "spiritual" are those who have passed from natural and carnal life and thought into the life of the Spirit, by way of His Cross.

"Ye shall know them" and "these signs will follow them" are the only true and acceptable ways to decern who is "spiritual"

Yes and I agree many can have different understandings which also makes my point? That to be quote "justified" is based upon ones understanding upon Who Christ Jesus is! Upon who He is in us and who we are in Him? The understanding of being "justified" comes as one grows in grace and knowledge of Christ. No man can tell me about God or who I am in Him?
Only the Holy Spirit can reveal these things! as it is written NO MAN KNOWS THE THINGS OF GOD BUT BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. we can look at terms and such and the written letter, but if the TRUTH of these things does not dwell in us in a living way? Its all just dead religion. Thus it is written BEING ROOTED AND GROUNDED IN LOVE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND? a Love that surpasses knowledge!

So again my point is that "justification" is a living truth! not a doctrine! This is the point James was trying to make! That a living faith in a living and Loving Christ will have living works!

This is well known to those who have a living faith. That we dont just set around and talk about being "justified" or "elect" we live by His Life!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The trouble with this is, once the language was surveyed for contemporary use of the term "justification", something odd emerged. Bauer / Arndt / Gingrich pointed it out in their groundbreaking survey. The term "justification" itself had fallen out of use as made righteous, that is, as being a process of making someone who they ought to be.

So any native speaker of First Century Greek is not going to use such a word for the process of making someone righteous.

(emphasis in your quote mine)

That is NOT what I am defending at all. I am not saying justification is a process at all.

Justification is being declared righteous one time, forever. For us that means the sinner who is guilty of sin is declared by God to now not be legally guilty of sin. This happens through the gracious act of wiping away sin guilt. This forgiveness is not conditional on satisfactory performance of righteous work as some insist. It is conditioned on the 'work' of faith--believing that God forgives your sin for the asking. It happens in a moment when a person lays hold of the grace of God's forgiveness through faith and confidence in the promise of the Seed through which that forgiveness comes.

The Holy Spirit is the sign that one has received a legal declaration of righteousness through the forgiveness of sin. Hebrews teaches us how a person is forever and perfectly forgiven through the one sacrifice, made one time, for all people. The 'work' of the one who has placed their faith in Christ for the one-time, eternal removal of sin guilt is to continue in that faith in order to remain in that one time declaration of right standing with God. The evidence of an abiding faith is righteous work. Righteous work is not how you secure the righteous nature of God that does righteous work. Work is how we KNOW we have received that righteous nature by faith apart from the merit of righteous work.

But it's "justification" as a process of becoming righteous, that is not in use any more.

I couldn't agree more. Justification is NOT a process of becoming righteous. It is a one time forgiveness of sin, secured by faith in that forgiveness, that makes us legally righteous and guilt free before God one time, forever. (Which is why we no longer need a system of worship--the first covenant of worship--to deal with a sin guilt we no longer have and will never have again...provided we continue in our faith in Christ.)

The only sin that can make us legally guilty before God again is the sin that represents a rejection and turning away from the blood covering that declared us righteous before God. Some say that is not possible...but that is the stuff of another thread.

So this is not a defense of some kind of process of justification. There is no such thing. The Bible does not teach this. Hebrews teaches the opposite. And the process of becoming perfect in thought and deed apart from our legal standing before God is called sanctification. I'm pretty sure you know all this.

"..by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984 parenthesis mine)

made perfect: justification (one time event)

are being made holy: sanctification (a life long process)


This explains what I mean when I say a person is 'made' righteous before God. We are declared righteous, legally speaking, before God because our sin guilt is forgiven. This is Paul's argument. We show ourselves to have the gracious gift of righteousness through faith when we do righteous things--specifically, when we love our neighbor as ourselves--James' argument. The person who can't or won't do that (show themselves righteous through what they do) has a faith that can not save them. Because that 'faith' did not result in the receiving of the new nature (that does right things) by the Holy Spirit.

 

[farouk]

Hi Jethro:

(New photo, BTW. Is that you? or do I need new glasses...)

|For me, the 'not of works' of Ephesians 2.9 settles a lot of argument.

 

[Mitspa]

(emphasis in your quote mine)

That is NOT what I am defending at all. I am not saying justification is a process at all.

Justification is being declared righteous one time, forever. For us that means the sinner who is guilty of sin is declared by God to now not be legally guilty of sin. This happens through the gracious act of wiping away sin guilt. This forgiveness is not conditional on satisfactory performance of righteous work as some insist. It is conditioned on the 'work' of faith--believing that God forgives your sin for the asking. It happens in a moment when a person lays hold of the grace of God's forgiveness through faith and confidence in the promise of the Seed through which that forgiveness comes.

The Holy Spirit is the sign that one has received a legal declaration of righteousness through the forgiveness of sin. Hebrews teaches us how a person is forever and perfectly forgiven through the one sacrifice, made one time, for all people. The 'work' of the one who has placed their faith in Christ for the one-time, eternal removal of sin guilt is to continue in that faith in order to remain in that one time declaration of right standing with God. The evidence of an abiding faith is righteous work. Righteous work is not how you secure the righteous nature of God that does righteous work. Work is how we KNOW we have received that righteous nature by faith apart from the merit of righteous work.




I couldn't agree more. Justification is NOT a process of becoming righteous. It is a one time forgiveness of sin, secured by faith in that forgiveness, that makes us legally righteous and guilt free before God one time, forever. (Which is why we no longer need a system of worship--the first covenant of worship--to deal with a sin guilt we no longer have and will never have again...provided we continue in our faith in Christ.)

The only sin that can make us legally guilty before God again is the sin that represents a rejection and turning away from the blood covering that declared us righteous before God. Some say that is not possible...but that is the stuff of another thread.

So this is not a defense of some kind of process of justification. There is no such thing. The Bible does not teach this. Hebrews teaches the opposite. And the process of becoming perfect in thought and deed apart from our legal standing before God is called sanctification. I'm pretty sure you know all this.

"..by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14 NIV1984 parenthesis mine)

made perfect: justification (one time event)

are being made holy: sanctification (a life long process)


This explains what I mean when I say a person is 'made' righteous before God. We are declared righteous, legally speaking, before God because our sin guilt is forgiven. This is Paul's argument. We show ourselves to have the gracious gift of righteousness through faith when we do righteous things--specifically, when we love our neighbor as ourselves--James' argument. The person who can't or won't do that (show themselves righteous through what they do) has a faith that can not save them. Because that 'faith' did not result in the receiving of the new nature (that does right things) by the Holy Spirit.

I find no fault in the doctrine you have just stated! Here you seem to hold that justified means justified? Maybe I have failed to understand your other post? For you seemed to promote that one needs the works of the law in some part or measure to complete the justification of faith! Now that is what others seem to draw from your post as well! So, Is this now your position? This is the problem with those who see themselves justified by law and by grace! It produces a "double mind" sometimes justified by faith, until one breaks the law of moses!

This is trying to live under both covenants! no! one must die to first and live by faith and Spirit in the New!

We are justified by the LIFE OF CHRIST! that life is in the spirit, not in the flesh. The love that James speaks of is not a love that a man can produce from the law of moses, but it is the Law written upon the heart, which is the Spirit!

The love of God shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Spirit!

This is Agape! this is to which James is speaking, not some religious work of flesh produced from looking to the law of moses. But that love which a justified man in Christ should have...