When we speak of “being justified” are we speaking of a moral righteousness (being viewed or made right with the Law), being right with God’s promise of redemption (His covenant with Abraham), or something else?
Being "just" or "righteous"
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, May 21, 2016.
Page 1 of 2
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
This is further proven because Abraham is given as the example of justification by faith for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and the work of justification is confined as a completed action "in uncircumcision" rather than a continuous action "in circumcision" (Rom. 4:9-11). Aorist tense verbs are used in verse 11 along with perfect tense verbs in Romans 5:1-2.
Hence, the above evidence demonstrates the "ungodly" is being declared righteous on the basis of imputation rather than impartation (by spiritual union or sanctification). -
I am not speaking of any verse in particular, but the definition of being righteous or just. -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
That's why I mentioned that it's not "or...or...or" It's some of all of those.
And quite frankly, we've really watered down what it means to be not justified.
Just. Right. Fair. Equitable. Maybe more -
Being justified refers to being justified by God such that whatever God had, or would have, against us, has been removed by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ. It refers to our spiritual condition, made righteous, and occurs when God puts us spiritually in Christ, a change in our spiritual location. Being justified before God is a gift of grace through the blood of the Lamb.
-
To be justified is to declared legally righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless but that he is "declared" sinless. The sinner is not made righteous in that his soul is changed or that his soul is infused with God's grace. Instead, justification is a legal act of imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer (Rom. 4:11, Phil. 3:9).
This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, " . . . having now been justified by His blood . . . " (Rom. 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees him through the sacrifice of Jesus and "sees" him without sin.
This declaration of innocence is not without cost, for it required the satisfaction of God's Law, " . . . without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus and in the "one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men," (Rom. 5:18). In justification, the justice of God fell upon Jesus. We receive mercy. We are not judged according to our sins. And grace is shed upon us. We receive eternal life. This justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24) and by faith (Rom. 3:28) because Jesus bore our guilt (Isaiah 53:12).
https://carm.org/dictionary-theology-intro -
-
-
Justification of life to all men in Romans 5:18 is referring to our bodily resurrection. Just like 1Cor 15:21-22 says that in Adam all die, but in Christ all will live
-
-
That view of justification meaning that Abraham's faith was validated is inconsistent with the view that justification means for him to be declared legally righteous.
It's just inconsistent, that's all. -
Abraham was justified in the sight of men (IE, proof of his faith).
Completely different subject. -
No, it doesn't mean that. It can be applied in that way, but doesn't MEAN that.
And that's really what this thread is about - What does justified mean. If one can nail down what that word means, then the definition can take the place of that word in every instance.
And loading the notion of guilt and innocence into the definition of justification is dangerous.
It leads to a view that everything in scripture is a matter of heaven and hell. And that's a view I've seen on display all my life. -
This is the kind of anti-intellectual flatulence that is largely responsible for the dumbing down of modern Christendom.
Every word is modified by its context. To fail to understand that is to lack sufficient understanding to carry on intelligent discourse on any subject. -
To say a word means such-and-such is different from saying it can be used in this way or that way.
Everything I've seen in the last few weeks on this board relating to justification has stemmed from discussions about N.T. Wright's NPP
And I said the same thing about where he's been at. He is confusing definition with application. Mulling over various uses of "justified" in the New Testament to derive a single definition which can then be imposed upon every use, regardless of context.
But that's backward and circular. Context doesn't define a word, context indicates application. There first has to be fixed definitions in order to even have a context.
Maybe there are multiple definitions, and context will help determine which one is meant - but context will never create a definition. -
1) Abraham's faith, not Abraham himself, was credited as righteousness.
2) The point made in James is that we are justified through "live" faith (faith from which faithfulness flows) rather than "dead" faith. Only "live faith" is credited as righteousness. -
1) Abraham's faith, not Abraham himself, was credited as righteousness.
2) The point made in James is that we are justified through "live" faith (faith from which faithfulness flows) rather than "dead" faith. Only "live faith" is credited as righteousness.
Page 1 of 2