Featured Justification

Why did you cherry-pick OT passages to try to prove that "Justification in the O.T. is a forensic statement, the pronouncement of a legal decision." ??

Was it a forensic statement when Judah said that Tamar "is more righteous than I" (Gen. 38:26 NASB)?
Are we to think he declared that she was declared more legally innocent than he?
Yes, I meant to use the word "declared" twice. He made a declaration that she was dikaioo, so declaration cannot be part of the definition. Otherwise he declared that she was declared. And it was not a courtroom context, either. He was simply saying she was a better person. She was more upright

I know nothing of Hebrew, btw. I'm looking in my Septuagint.

What about Psalm:9 which declares "The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. This isn't even speaking about a human, or even God Himself, but rather His judgments are just[ified]. Or right. Or equitable. Or fair.

Psalm 51:4 says
"Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
So that You are justified when You speak
And blameless when You judge"

Do you think David was making a legal pronouncement toward God? Or how about Psalm 73:13
"Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure
And washed my hands in innocence"

David was lamenting over the perceived successes of the wicked, how they don't struggle and nothing seems to be against them. In the Septuagint it reads "I justified my heart" but as rendered in the NASB he kept his heart pure. He didn't partake in the wickedness that seemed to bring success to so many. There's no courtroom, no forensics, no acquittal jargon. He was speaking about his character

Or how about Psalm 82:3
1 God takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the rulers.
2 How long will you judge unjustly
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah.
3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Here, God is telling the rulers to stop exploiting the weak, the powerless, the needy, etc.
Not "credit them with righteousness", simply do right toward them.

Justified simply does not inherently contain the notion of acquittal, or innocence, or any declaration of such. And it doesn't even have to relate directly to a person. Justified simply means fair, equitable, right, warranted, or a number of other synonyms.

Can it be used in a forensic sense? Absolutely. Fair, just, equitable, right, etc can all be found in legal settings. But that's application, not definition.

Just as I said in the Wright and Justification thread, it is backward to start with application to nail down a definition, then press that definition onto every application.

It leads to scripture twisting, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, or altogether ignoring scripture.

For instance, there isn't any indication in Luke 10:29 that the Pharisee was trying to exonerate himself of a crime, or declare himself to be sinless, or anything else that would demand that the account be crammed into the context of Justification by Faith.

And where in Romans 8:33-34 do you see anything about being justified by faith? There's nothing in the text which demands it, unless you come with a preloaded definition of justified

And probably the most heinous is James 2:20-24
Have you ever even read Genesis 12, 15 & 22?
Do you know what it was that God promised to Abraham? What Abraham believed? And how that related to placing Isaac on the altar 25 years later? How did the incident with Isaac fulfill the scripture which said that Abraham believed God?

 

I just noticed a typo in my above reply...

"What about Psalm:9 which declares "The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. This isn't even speaking about a human, or even God Himself, but rather His judgments are just[ified]. Or right. Or equitable. Or fair."

The scripture is Psalm 19:9

 

2 Cor. 5:21. τον μη γνοντα αμαρτιαν υπερ ημων αμαρτιαν εποιησεν ινα ημεις γενωμεθα δικαιοσυνη θεου εν αυτω

2 Cor. 5:21. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NRSV)

Is Paul talking about forensics here? Is a true Christian merely declared righteous, or is the atonement of Christ sufficiently efficacious to make him righteous though his faith?

 

You did cherry pick, because you didn't use every example, you didn't use the first 5 or all from on genre, or anything else that looked like it had rhyme or reason. You hand selected those which you thought had the most thrust.

And the one non-forensic example was thrown in as though it were an anomaly.

I don't think you comprehended my point. DECLARE is not built into dikaioo, otherwise declaring someone to be dikaioo would be nonsensical. You don't declare someone to be declared right.

If declaration is part of dikaioo, then an additional element of declaration would be redundant and retarded.

You're still confusing definition and application. Genesis 38:26 is not a matter of forensics. You made it out as though forensics is built into the definition also. That's disingenuous because a great many uses have to do with character and not legal responsibility.

 

Most fortunately this view is horribly incorrect. When Jesus took our sins upon himself, He became a sinner and accused God of forsaking Him! (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). Conversely, when a man is saved and Baptized in the Holy Spirit, he becomes a new being, a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17)—and being in Christ, he becomes free from the bonds of sin in just the same way that Jesus himself is free from the bonds of sin. This is what the New Testament teaches; and it is what I experienced the very moment that I was saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit.

One minute I was a wretched sinner in the bonds of sin; the very next minute the bonds were ripped asunder and I was set free just as Jesus had promised me in John 8:31-36. I was no longer a slave; I was a free man who had died to the Law—the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56). My old attitudes, goals, ambitions, desires, way of thinking, wicked vocabulary, etc., instantly became relics of my wretched past.

This quote is taken out of context. Here is more of the paragraph,

He was made sin, may mean either, he was made a sin-offering, or, the abstract being used for the concrete, he was made a sinner. Many of the older commentators prefer the former explanation; Calvin, and almost all the moderns adopt the latter….​

Very early in my first pastorate, I purchased Charles Hodge’s commentaries on Romans (his final edition that was issued in 1864), 1 Corinthians (1857), 2 Corinthians 1860, and Ephesians (1856). I also purchased his three-volume Systematic Theology (1872-1873). Upon learning from these works that Hodge denied that the atonement of Christ was sufficiently efficacious to free men from the bonds of slavery, and that he believed that the man in Romans 7:14-25 was the Apostle Paul in his mature Christian state, I did not purchase any more of his works.

Charles Hodge died on June 19, 1878, having never experienced freedom from the bonds of sin because he believed that the New Testament teaches that such an experience cannot be realized in this life but exclusively in the next. Perhaps this was his due because he owned African people of the Negro race and endorsed the teaching that the institution of slavery in the United States was ordained by God himself in the Bible!

 

Your statement is a self-contradiction. One cannot "take sins upon himself" and become a sinner except legally and positionally because in actual reality he "did no sin" and was "without sin" with regard to his own personal actions.

The Bible teaches no such thing! You are confusing regeneration with the baptism in the Spirit. No individuals are baptized in the Spirit today - none! Prior to Acts 2 the baptism in the Spirit was prophetic and unfulfilled and after Acts 2 it is spoken as prophetically fulfilled (Acts 11:15-16). It is time and place located ("in Jerusalem" "not many days hence....When the day of Pentecost was fully come"). It is restricted to water baptized believers whose names are already written in heaven (Lk. 10:20) BEFORE they were baptized in the Spirit (Mt. 3:11 "I baptize YOU in water...he will baptize YOU in the Spirit..."). This is an INSTITUTIONAL rather than an individual baptism and always has reference to the day of dedication for a new "house of God" (Ex. 40:35; 2 Chron. 7:1-3; Acts 2:1-3) and in the New Testament fulfillment is upon a PLURAL "you" of previously water baptized believers as the new "house of God" the ekklesia. Nowhere in scripture is there any command to seek a baptism in the Spirit. After the Gentiles were publicly confirmed as suitable candidates for water baptism and membership in the new "house of God" there is never again any mention of the baptism in the Spirit by Christ.

To make a long story short, Romans 7:14-25 is referring to Paul in his present tense Christian condition as one who has not yet been freed from UNREDEEMED FLESH as that is what the resurrection and glorification of the body is all about - removing the indwelling principle of sin or the principle of "corruption" (1 Cor. 15:53-55). The lusts or natural craving of the body do war against the soul under the power of indwelling sin. No Christian, no matter how much he is under the influence of the Spirit is without sin (1 Jn. 1:8-10). There would be absolutely no sense to exhort Christians to "reckon" themselves dead to sin if they are already actually dead to sin in the absolute sense. There would be no need to exhort Christians to "Let not sin reign" over them if they were already dead to sin in the absolute sin (Rom. 6:11-13). They have been "freed" from sin positionally through justification and progressively by sanctification by the power of the spirit due to the resurrection life in new birth.
To claim that Charles Hodge was a lost sinner in the bonds of sin simply because he did not embrace your error is absurd and puts yourself in the place of God as final judge of his soul. Who do you think you are? God?

 

I only read a part of the OP but had to stop when the falsehood assertion that God declared Abraham righteous was made. The text is crystal, God declared Abraham's faith as righteous. Abraham was not made perfect (faultless) until after Christ died. This is basic Christianity 101.

We are "justified" when God, and God alone, chooses us and transfers us into the kingdom of His Son. We undergo the circumcision of Christ where our sin burden is removed, and we arise in Christ a new creation, born anew, made perfect, justified. This is basic Christianity 101.

 

Surely you don't support Craig in his position of justification do you?

 

He declared his faith as righteous because he already has told his readers in crystal clear language that he is speaking of faith "IN" the Person and redemptive work of Christ:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

So he is not talking about abstract faith but faith "IN" a specifically defined object. That is the same faith he continuous to define in Romans 4:16-21 and then spells out in crystal clear language in Romans 4:22-25. Can't make it clearer than that!

The same gospel preached to us was preached to Abraham by God (Heb. 4:2, Acts 10:43; 26:22-23 and Gal. 3:6-8). No other savior, no other name given under heaven, no other way, no other salvation than that preached since the fall in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15) typified in sacrifices (Jn. 1:29) and ordinances today!

His faith in Christ justified or declared him righteous because his faith laid hold of the promise of the gospel of Christ.

 

Sir, Abraham's faith was toward God. Jesus was a mystery to him.

Only when God puts us spiritually into the body of Christ are we made righteous. In Christ = justified, not in Christ = not justified, a sinner condemned already.

No one was justified or made perfect before Christ died. To assert otherwise means your faith in not in the blood of Christ. This is basic Christianity 101.

 

I am surprised that you are not familiar with the fact the Hodge was an owner of slaves—especially in view of the fact that he was a strong defender of slavery in the middle of his life, but gradually became sympathetic to the abolitionist movement—but not to the point that he freed his own slaves. However, his slaves were, of course, freed by President Lincoln. My reason for bringing up the fact that Hodge owned slaves is that he emphatically accused the Apostle Paul of being a slave of sin—even though he (Hodge) was very well aware of what it meant to be a slave.


Why do some 70-year-old men become mean and nasty in their old age and insult the knowledge of people who have a better education than they do? It is no wonder that such men feel a need to carry a gun where ever they go—even to church on Sunday!

P.S. I do not believe that Martin is 70 years old.