Justification

[Martin Marprelate]

In the light of recent discussions, I think it might be helpful to look at the Doctrine of Justification as it is generally understood. I'm sorry is this is Grandma sucking eggs to some here, but I hope the post may be helpful to some who may not be completely au fait with the doctrine, and stimulate a discussion with those who believe it to be incorrect.

Justification by Faith Alone is found in embryo in the ECFs (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr etc.), but played a major part in the Reformation, being originated by Luther and supported by calvin and all the Reformers. It is also a Baptist doctrine. All the early Particular Baptists supported it. One of the best short works on the subject is The Marrow of True Justification by Benjamin Keach, published in the 17th Century and still available through SGCB. The best modern book is The God Who Justifies by Particular Baptist James White, published in2001 by Bethany House.


The Hebrew word usually translated as ‘justify’ or ‘justified’ is tsadaq. Here are some examples of its usage:

Exodus 23:7. ‘Keep yourself far from a false matter; do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked.’ The context of Exodus 23:1-9 is that of justice and the law court.

Deut. 25:1. ‘If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked…….’ Again, the language is of the law court, and the words ‘justify’ and ‘condemn’ are placed in apposition. In the Hebrew, in the phrase, ‘justify the righteous,’ the same Hebrew root is used for both words (see NASB).

Proverbs 17:15. ‘’He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.’

Isaiah 5:22, 23. ‘Woe to men…..who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away justice from the righteous man.’

Again the contexts of these verses is legal, and the idea of ‘justify’ is not to make someone innocent or righteous, but to declare him to be so. Both the righteous and the wicked were so when they entered court, and did not change when they left. Justification in the O.T. is a forensic statement, the pronouncement of a legal decision.

One more example from the O.T., this time in a non-legal context:

Job 32:2. ‘Then the wrath of Elihu……was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God.’

The position here is that Job was constantly declaring himself to be righteous (eg. Job 31). He was not making himself just, but claiming to be so.

Obviously we have a problem here. If God declares righteous men to be righteous and the wicked to be wicked, how is it possible that He should ‘justify the ungodly’ (Romans 5:6)? How can God Himself be righteous if He does that which He condemns in others? In His own testimony of Himself in Exodus 34:6-7, there is an apparent contradiction: ‘The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgressions and sin, by no means clearing the guilty…...’ How can God be merciful and gracious, forgive iniquity and transgressions, yet absolutely not acquit the guilty? It doesn’t seem to make sense. But then we come to Isaiah 53:11-12.

‘He will see the labour [NASB ‘anguish’] of His soul and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.’

In previous verses (4-10), we may read of a substitutionary work of our Lord. He is ‘wounded’ and ‘bruised’ for our transgressions and iniquities; He is ‘stricken for the transgression of My people,’ and made an offering for sin.’ Substitutionary atonement is very much to the fore. But in v.11, we are told that the Christ will ‘justify many;’ that is, He will exonerate them, declare them righteous. How will He do that? By bearing their iniquities; by becoming one of them and bearing their sin.

We can now look at Genesis 15:6, which is quoted four times in the N.T. ‘And [Abraham] believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.’ Abraham had no righteousness in himself, but when he trusted in the Lord, his faith was accounted, reckoned, credited, imputed to him as righteousness. In other words, he was declared righteous, justified, on account of his faith. His faith did not make him ethically righteous- he continued to sin after he was justified just as he had before- but he was declared righteous on account of his faith.

So with those thoughts in mind, let us come to the N.T. The Greek verb ‘to justify’ is dikaioo. There is a question as to whether the word means ‘to make righteous’ or ‘to declare righteous,’ but dikaioo is the word generally used in the Septuagint to translate Tsadaq and when we come to look at the usage in the N.T. we can see that ‘to declare righteous’ is the meaning.

Luke 10:29. ‘But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus…..’ This man had had his self-righteousness pricked by the Lord Jesus and he wanted to defend himself, to declare himself righteous.

Romans 8:33-4. ‘Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns?’ We are back in the law courts. God has pronounced the verdict- “This is a righteous man!” Who can dispute the finding of the Supreme Court?

But on what grounds does God declare guilty sinners to be righteous? Through the shed blood and perfect righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood….. to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (Romans 3:23-26). The sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the cross has propitiated God’s righteous anger against sin, and through His suffering, God is able to be righteous Himself in declaring guilty sinners to be righteous. ‘For [God] made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. 5:21). This is Luther’s ‘great exchange.’ There on the cross, all our sins were laid upon the Saviour’s sinless shoulders, and His perfect righteousness credited to us who believe.

Just a brief word on James 2. 'Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?' (v.21). This happened about 25 years after Abraham was credited with righteousness on account of his faith in Genesis 15:6. True faith will always issue forth in works. What the text is saying is that after Abraham was justified by faith, his works declared the genuineness of that faith. Imagine Abraham saying, "I really believe that God wants me to leave Ur of the Chaldees," and then staying just where he was! What sort of faith would that have been? No, our works justify us in the sense that they declare the genuineness of our faith. Rahab (v.25) was justified by faith when she believed in the God of the Israelites (Joshua 2:9), but her works justified her when she put her faith into action by protecting the spies (cf. Acts 26:20).

Much more to say, but I will leave it there. I've run out of steam. That is what I understand by Justification. I believe it to be what the Bible teaches.

 

[JamesL]

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?

 

[JamesL]

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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." ??

I didn't. I deliberately added a non-forensic statement (Job 32:2).

"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"

This actually proves my point. David sees that God's righteous judgement is vindicated. He pronounces God's judgement against him (2 Samuel 12:10-14) to be righteous. He justifies God.
Genesis 38:26 is really no different. Jacob acknowledges that Tamar is more righteous than he. He justifies her and so she is not burned as a harlot. He didn't make her righteous; he pronounced her to be so. In Psalm 19:9, David proclaims God's ordinances to be righteous. He doesn't make them so; he proclaims them to be so. Insofar as a man may do so, he justifies God.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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?

Christ was not made a sinner; ''He had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in His mouth..........My righteous Servant will justify many'' (Isaiah 53:9b, 11b). Sin was imputed to Him. In just the same way we are not made righteous at the point of justification, but righteousness is imputed to us as it was to Abraham.

'He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.' [Charles Hodge; Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians]

 

[JamesL]

I didn't. I deliberately added a non-forensic statement (Job 32:2).

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.

This actually proves my point. David sees that God's righteous judgement is vindicated. He pronounces God's judgement against him (2 Samuel 12:10-14) to be righteous. He justifies God.
Genesis 38:26 is really no different. Jacob acknowledges that Tamar is more righteous than he. He justifies her and so she is not burned as a harlot. He didn't make her righteous; he pronounced her to be so. In Psalm 19:9, David proclaims God's ordinances to be righteous. He doesn't make them so; he proclaims them to be so. Insofar as a man may do so, he justifies God.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I missed part of your post.

Or how about Psalm 73:13?

Different Hebrew word. Zakah not Tsadak.

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.

Verse 3 shows wonderful Hebrew poetic parallelism. 'Vindicate the weak and fatherless; justify the afflicted and destitute.' We're back in the courtroom. Instead of giving judgement to the wicked and powerful, the rulers are to declare the poor and needy to be righteous.

I'll do some more later.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Christ was not made a sinner; ''He had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in His mouth..........My righteous Servant will justify many''(Isaiah 53:9b, 11b). Sin was imputed to Him. In just the same way we are not made righteous at the point of justification, but righteousness is imputed to us as it was to Abraham.

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.

'He was made sin, we are made 'righteousness.' The only sense in which we are made the righteousness of God is that we are regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which He was made sin is that He was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with His being in Himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly. In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.'[Charles Hodge; Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians]

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!

 

[The Biblicist]

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).

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.

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)

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

That was because God had, for those three hours of darkness, forsaken Him. He experienced fully during that time the penalties of hell, of which separation from God's gracious presence is primary. But He never sinned, otherwise He would not have been a suitable sacrifice (Leviticus 22:21).

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.

Amen! When God justifies the ungodly, He does not leave them where He finds them. But we must not conflate Justification and Sanctification.

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.

I'm delighted to hear how wonderfully righteous you have become. I hope your wife agrees with your assessment of yourself. Tell me, what is your hope of salvation on the Last Day? Is it in your own eminent righteousness, or is it in the Christ who died for sinners?

FWIW, my own experience was similar to that of Augustus Toplady:

'Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress,
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die!'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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!

This is what is known in British soccer parlance as 'playing the man and not the ball.'
I'm sure that you know American history far better than I do, but I find it just a little hard to believe that Charles Hodge was owning slaves in 1878. Wink

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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 appear not to understand. The is a Greek adjective, dikaios, which means 'righteous.' The is a noun, dikaiosune, which means either 'righteous' or justified' according to context, and there is a verb, dikaioo, which is what we're talking about. There is no such verb as 'to righteous,' so it means either 'to make righteous' or 'to declare to be righteous,' 'to justify.' I believe that in the majority of places, expecially when dealing with salvation, it means the latter.

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.

Again, you're confusing the verb with the adjective. Judah is declaring Tamar to be more righteous than he is; therefore, he is justifying her. The sentence he pronounced on her in v.24 is reversed. She is treated as righteous, even though she isn't (v.14ff).

 

[Van]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Charles Hodge was owning slaves in 1878.

You know Craig. Facts don't deter him in the slightest.

 

[The Biblicist]

You know Craig. Facts don't deter him in the slightest.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Did the Old Testament Saints know of Christ? You better believe they did. Well, at least if you believe the bible.

Acts 10:43 To Him all the prophets bear witness, that through His name, everyone believing in Him shall receive forgiveness of sins."

Who was Peter talking about? Acts 10:40 "This Jesus!"

 

[Craigbythesea]

This is what is known in British soccer parlance as 'playing the man and not the ball.'

I'm sure that you know American history far better than I do, but I find it just a little hard to believe that Charles Hodge was owning slaves in 1878.Wink

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.