Featured What is Justification by faith?

Whatever it is, it is illustrated by Abraham as the example for "all who are of faith" meaning, justification by faith for Abraham is the same for "all who are of faith" or else he is not "the father of all who are of faith with regard to this very subject - justification by faith. Hence, there are not two different kinds of justification by faith doctrines in the Bible, one for pre-cross saints as opposed to another for post-cross saints.

Justification by faith with regard to Abraham IS imputation of righteousness to the "ungodly" without works, (Rom. 4:1-6) without ordinances (vv. 9-11) , without law (vv. 13-15) and without faith being defined as faithfulness(vv. 16-22).

Justification by faith with regard to Abraham IS remission of sins (vv. 6-8) without divine ordinances (vv. 9-11).

Justification by faith with regard to Abraham IS faith that has for its object the promised Christ or faith "on him" (Rom. 4:5) or "in him" (Rom. 3:24-26).

Justification by faith with regard to Abraham is a completed action at the point of faith rather than an ongoing incompleted action that spans his life, as it was completed "in uncircumcision" not in the "circumcision" part of his life (Rom. 4:9-11). Therefore, it is "before the Lord" (Rom. 4:1) rather than before men as described in James 2:14-22. Justification by faith with regard to Abraham is not personal faithfulness or active involvement including works but is faith in the sufficiency of God to be faithful to what he has promised (Rom. 4:16-22).

Hence, there are not two different doctrines of justification in the Bible, one by works of the Law and one without the works of the law as Paul does not give TWO different examples but only ONE example and it is for "All who are of faith" not merely just for pre-cross or for post-cross people are of faith.

The Law was NEVER EVER given as a means for justification and "no flesh" has ever been justified by the law (Rom. 3:19-20) or ever will be because the law demands obedience to EVERY POINT of the Law (James 2:10-12) in order to avoid its condemnation and to obtain is approval (justification of your personal life) and none have ever satisfied that demand but one - Jesus Christ. Therefore he is "the end of the law to all that believe" in him.

Some err in thinking that a few passages of Scripture where Jesus tells Pharisees to "do" the law to obtain eternal life means that was the way it was to be obtained prior to the cross. However, Jesus is responding in every case to those who ask what they must "DO" in order to obtain eternal life rather than who must they believe in. The Law is set forth to define what a person must "DO" if they are going to earn eternal life but in attempting to "DO" the law they will discover they cannot meet its demands and that my friend is the purpose of the law to reveal sin, or inability to meet its demands and thus turn them to something outside of themselves and their works to satisfy the law's demands - or justification by faith "on him" or Christ (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25).

Abraham is unquestionably a person living before the cross is he not? Yet he was not justified by personal obedience to God or faithfulness, but by faith "on him" and "without works" and without divine ordinances (Rom. 4:5-11) and without law keeping (vv. 13-15). So those who reject justification by faith in a Savior prior to the cross but demand justification by obedience to the Law plus faith must reject Abraham as the example at least for all pre-cross people if they are going to demand justification by personal obedience to the law. On the other hand if they accept him as the example of pre-cross persons with regard to justification by obedience, then they must reject him as the example for post-cross persons. Either way, they deny him as the "father OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and yet that is precisely how Paul is setting him forth with regard to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. He is the example of just ONE KIND of justification doctrine not two kinds.

So which is it? Is this OLD TESTAMENT pre-cross person the illustration for "all who are of faith" with regard to justification by faith as an example of those who are justified by obedience to the Law plus faith? Or is he an example of justification by faith without works, without obedience to the Law?

 

If I remember correctly, you don't believe when Adam sinned and died (spiritual death) in the day he ate that it was by that one act many sinned and many died, that "many" being the entire human race yet unconcieved in the loins of Adam. Thus, you don't believe human beings come into this world as spiritually dead sinners BY NATURE due to that one sin and as soon as they are able to express themselves that sin nature is manifested?

Since I do believe that, and I think you don't (correct me if my memory does not serve me well here) we really don't have anything in common to talk about justification at all, do we?

However, in response to your questions, I believe justification is through faith, which is further qualified to be IN GOD ("on him" - Rom. 4:5), in particular God's promise to save man from his sin problem. In particular, faith "in him" or "on him" has to do with the gospel promise that is sufficient to provide both the remission of sins and completely satisfy the righteousness demanded by the Law of God which is the initial cause for condemnation and death.

Hence, I do not believe justification has anything to do with making a sinner righteous with regard to his PERSON (which is what regeneration does) but with his legal position which has been previously defined by the Law of God - thus faith in the promise of God DECLARES the "ungodly" righteous based upon a righteousness the "ungodly" does not have or else they would not be called "ungodly." It is the righteous belonging to God's own Person that is imputed on the basis of faith.

 

An empty cliche

You an Darrell have a man made doctrine you must defend regardless of what you have to do with and to scripture to do it. End of story.

However, Romans 3-4 is setting forth Paul's doctrine of justification by faith and he not only uses Abraham to illustrate it, but Paul believes Abraham's justification is the MODEL "for all who are of faith." That my friend, totally trashes your theory.

In a word, your view is eisgesis not exegesis. For example, Paul is not speaking about TWO different kinds of doctrines about justification but is illustrating one kind - the Biblical kind. The Biblical kind applies to Abraham equally as to you and me or else he is not the father "of all who are of faith" with specific regard to the Pauline doctrine of justification.

More specifically, Paul defines "faith" in his doctrine of justification completely different than how you are defining it. He introduces this whole treatise and closes it by a very specific definition and application of "faith" according to how he uses it in his doctrine of justification.

His use of "faith" is not faithfulness, nor is it simply abstract faith, but it is faith that embraces a specific object, an object which is the Christ of the gospel (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25) the very same Christ preached by all the prophets according to Paul (Acts 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2). So this "faith" is not abstract faith, but is faith that embraces the promise of God provided in the provision of God as presented in the gospel of God. Please take note of the words "on him" in Rom. 4:5 (and "in him" and "in Christ" in Rom. 3:24-26 which introduces this doctrine) which proves this faith has a specific object. Hence, in Paul's doctrine of justification faith = the substance and hope expressed in the gospel with regard to the person of the gospel is what this faith embraces and is inseparable from. Furthermore, Paul's doctrine of justification "by" or "through" faith is the doctrine that God's own righteousness (Rom. 3:21-22) as manifested in God in the flesh is "imputed" to the gospel believer. Since the gospel believer's own person is "ungodly" it is therefore not an "imparted" righteousness but a legally declared righteousness based upon a foreign, alien righteousness to the actual person of the believer.

I believe those who oppose this precise doctrine of justification not only pervert the gospel but their salvation may be questionable.

 

Here are the points I am willing to debate:

1. In Romans 3:9-5:21 Paul is setting forth his doctrine of Justification

2. Abraham is not being used by Paul to illustrate a different kind of doctrine of justification as opposed to the Pauline doctrine, thus the same doctrine of justification.

3. It is in reference to Paul's doctrine of Justification that Abraham is set forth as the "father OF ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" thus the universal example for all who are justified before God rather than an Old Testament view of justification versus a New Testament view of justification.

4. That the single sin of Adam "many were made sinners" and by that one sin "many be dead" rather than by the individual sins of many many were made sinners and many be dead. In other words, the Adamic sin is what made all men sinners by nature and spiritually dead/separated from God and thus they come into the world already condemned, already dead in sins by nature at conception.

5. I am not willing to allow uninspired historians and uninspired history be the final authority in this debate, but I am only willing to allow the Biblical text in its context be the final authority - Isa. 8:20

 

Does anyone seriously deny that?
Everyone assumes their position affirms that.

I have no idea what you mean. When I edit my posts, it is because I have found spelling errors or because I missed something I need to express, or I can express it a better way, or words have been left out that left without correction would misrepresent what I have intended or what others may have intended. You are grasping at straws here.

I have never made any claims about your position that I have not also qualified by asking you to correct me if my memory of our last debate did not present your position correctly. So, if you think I have misrepresented your position then why don't you do what I asked, correct it instead of using it just as an opportunity to jab?

You are doing just like Darrell, mouthing insults rather than providing substantive reasons that can be honestly debated.

Your language is misleading and too lose for the text. He is specifically talking about the subject of justification not the subject of faith. Faith and works are brought into this discussion about justificaiton as the ONLY two alternatives for justification and as the two possible contrasting views of justification. The "model" is not mere abstract faith, but the model is justification by faith in contrast to justification by works. Your attempt to isolate "faith" from "justification" in this passage is a serious error. Moreover, it is not mere "faith" that gains approval but the proper object of faith as opposed to works from an improper source with regard to justification before God. Here is the point of debate which you are completely, and seemingly intentionally ignoring. From the beginning to the end of this discourse on justification faith is always qualified by its object ("in him...in Christ....on him...etc.) and never simply an abstract stand alone kind of faith. And it is faith in a specific object (God and his gospel promise) as the ONLY means for justification versus works as the basis for justification which is being discussed. In this context "faith" equals God's promised gospel provision that is embraced by faith, thus "righteousness" that justifies is the righteousness provided by God in the promised gospel provision.

Here are your precise words on this matter:

Scripture is clear. No one was justified before Christ died. Because everyone that is justified, is justified through Christ's faithfulness on the cross.

There is no ambiguity in your language here. However in direct contradiction to your claims Paul (by inspiration) says Abraham was "justified" prior to when Christ died on the cross whereas Van claims (by non-inspiration) that "no one was justified before Christ died." Hence, either you are completely repudiating Paul who says Abraham, who in fact did live prior to the cross, was justified, or you are asserting two different kinds of justification, one kind before the cross (Abraham kind) and another kind after the cross. Your additional comment, which I suppose is meant to clarify your denial of justification prior to the cross:

Romans 4:5 demonstrates your understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification based on faith in Christ and Christ's faithfulness on the cross is off the mark.

"Off the mark"? How so? Romans 4:5 is a very clear and definitive statement by Paul which expressly defines the nature of this faith as that which has a specific object "on him." This statement clearly demands that justification by faith "on him" is not inclusive of faithfulness to him - worketh not BUT believeth ON HIM....without works. The personal condition of the man being justified denies it is imparted righteousness or faithfulness as the one being justified is "ungodly" which of course must be the case as Paul has already claimed in the preceding context that no "works" justified him before God and that all men have sinned and there is none righteous, no NOT ONE! Hence, the only kind of man that can be justified is the "ungodly." This again proves they are justified by a righteousness that is alien or foreign to their own person because an "ungodly" person is not "righteous" in their own person. So it is your comments that are "off the mark" and fail to deal with the text correctly.

Complete sophistry! The immediate context defines his use of faith precisely where there can be no misunderstanding. It cannot be "faithfulness" because it is contrasted to "works" of every kind. In Romans 4:1-6 it is contrasted to PRE-Law works of Abraham. In Romans 4:6-13 it is contrasted with obedience to divine ordinances. In Romans 4:14-15 it is contrasted to works of the Law. In Romans 4:16-21 it is contrasted to any kind of performance by Abraham but is specifically defined as faith which has its basis solely in the power, provision and promises of God alone with regard to the gospel of Christ (Rom. 4:22-25). Both Paul and Jesus speak decisively on this issue of a gospel based faith by Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8; John 8:56-58; Rom. 4:22-25). So, your definition of justification and faith are completely bogus if we are going to take seriously your claim that "it is a cardinal rule that the Bible means what it says. I do not seek to nullify any verse or passage."

Again, lets look at your own words and see if this is really a strawman argument:

Scripture is clear. No one was justified before Christ died. Because everyone that is justified, is justified through Christ's faithfulness on the cross.

Romans 4:5 does not say Abraham was made righteous or justified. It says his faith (Abraham's faith) was credited as righteousness.

First, you deny anyone was justified before the cross. Second you claim it is "his faith" that was credited as righteousness, thus denying it was his faith in Christ's provision for sin as promised by God in the pre-cross gospel. Thus, you have neutered "faith" from its gospel object and made it mere abstract faith separated from the gospel provision for justification. At minimum you are clearly denying Abraham's faith is a gospel based faith and thus teaching either no kind of justification before the cross or another kind of justification before the cross. The only thing Paul is denying is that Abraham was justified "by works" but he is not denying Abraham was justified (contrary to your denial where you claim Abraham was not justified):

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Rather, Paul is defining justification to be by faith rather than by works because the personal condition of Abraham was "ungodly" by definition of God's standard of righteousness as "no flesh" could be justified in God's sight, according to God's standard of righteousness. Paul is repudiating your view of justification, and especially your view of faith by Abraham, as you disconnect his faith with justification before God.

Now, let's see if we do have some common ground. You said, and I quote your own words:

Thus, Romans 5:19 says by the disobedience of the one (Adam) the many (everyone save Christ) were made sinners, and thus were conceived in iniquity.

Now, if I remember correctly, a few years ago, you and I had a long drawn out debate over the passages in the Old Testament that taught infants were born sinners by nature at birth. You vigoriously denied these passages taught that. However, now, if I understand the seeming clear language above that I have just quoted, you have come around to my position that all human beings are conceived with a sinful nature due to the Adamic sin? Does my memory serve me correctly about your past position and does your present language indicate precisely what it seems to indicate on the surface?

 

Which statement are you referring to? I simply cut and pasted and so I don't see how I could have misquoted? If there is a misquote it is purely accidental and not intentional.

 

You have got to be kidding? Simply stating that you and Van take the same basic position about pre-cross saints is no secret as it is a matter of public record. If you are that sensitive to merely having your name identified with a doctrine you openly espouse, you are too sensitive to be on a debate forum. On the other hand if I had associated your name with a doctrine that was not a matter of public record with your name then of course that would be different.

I suppose you never have used anyone's name to associate with a doctrine that you did not first personally contact and say, "hey, I am using your name to associate with a specific position that is a matter of public record"?? Like you have never mentioned the name of John MacArthur, or WT. Wright or etc. in reference to a doctrine that is associated with them on public record without first writing them and saying, "Hey, I am using your name in association with this doctrinal position"?????

 

Both Van and Darrell deny that justification by faith in God, meaning in God's gospel promised provision occurred before the cross. However, Romans 3-5 is the presentation of Paul's doctrine of justification and he provides only two possible contrasting alternatives - (1) justification by faith versus (2) justification by works. There is no third position that mixes justification by faith plus works or obedience (as Darrel teaches). There is no third position of imputed righteousness based on faith distinct and separate from justification or distinct and separate from God's promised gospel provision (as Van teaches).

Moreover, Abraham is presented as the model of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith without works "for all who are of faith" with regard to justification "before God."

Now, either Abraham was justified by faith (faith in context is equal to the gospel provision promised by God) before the cross or we have two different kinds of justification. One kind before the cross and another kind after the cross. However, if that were the case then Paul would not present Abraham as his model for the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith "for all who are of faith."

Justification was a completed action in the case of Abraham rather than an ongoing incompleted action. It was confined within "uncircumcision" and explicitly denied to be a continuing action into "circumcision". It is an Aorist tense completed action (Rom. 4:11) and a perfect tense completed action (Rom. 5:1-2).

Justification was not based on or inclusive of faithfulness of Abraham. Faith is not contextually defined as inclusive of faithfulness but in direct contrast to personal faithfulness or any kind of personal performance (Rom. 4:16-22).

Imputation and declared righteousness are the only possible views as the whole context denies individual faithfulness, individual righteousness or state or condition of righteousness but rather a state of "ungodliness" at the point of justification by faith. The preceding context denies the possibility of personal righteousness (Rom. 4:1-2) or righteousness through personal performance to the Law (Rom. 3:19-20) as the condition or state of all fallen human beings is that "there is none righteous, no not one" (Rom. 3:9-11). Therefore, by necessity the righteousness imputed is a foreign, alien righteousness to the person being justified.

However, this is not to be distorted by claiming that such a doctrine would justify sin, as justification accompanies regeneration from whence progressive sanctification occurs. That is not to be distorted as inclusive of each other as they are distinct from each other but do not occur without each other.

 

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

This text necessarily implies that Abraham was justified before God, but not by works but by faith. In this text the term "justified" and the phrase "believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" are inclusive of each other. However, "justified" is not exhausted by this inclusive phrase. Indeed, as we see "justified" is inclusive of remission of sins or the negative side of imputed righteousness:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness

After introducing Abraham as the illustration of the Pauline doctrine of justification (Rom. 4:1-3) Paul immediately in verses 4-5 begins an abstract instruction concerning the nature of justification by faith and then turns to David as an example of the negative side of imputed righteousness. By "negative side" I mean that Justification not only provides the positive demands of the law (righteousness) but also deals with the negative basis for condemnation by the law - sin.

Therefore, Paul uses Abraham as an example of a justified man NOT UNDER THE LAW and then uses David, as an example of a justified man UNDER THE LAW to demonstrate the Law has no bearing on justification by faith prior to the cross any more than after the cross.

Remission of sins as an inseparable aspect of justification by faith BEFORE the cross is clearly stated in present tense terms with regard to David ("are...are....are....is" - vv. 7-8) and the use of the future tense is from the past completed act of justification in the life of David - demanding that no time in the future after having been justified "will" sin be imputed - thus signifying it is a completed irreversable action that is inclusive of both imputed foreign alien righteousness and complete remission of sin BEFORE the cross.

This form of justification by faith without works inclusive of imputed foreign alien righteousness and complete remission of sins is summarized as "The Blessed Man" and "this blessedness." This is precisely what the gospel preached before the cross promised as the present condition of all pre-cross believers in the precross gospel:

"To him give all the prophets witness that whosever believeth upon his name shall receive remission of sins" - Acts 10:43

This state of justification was not a futuristic promise as far as application but a PRESENT completed action promise as demonstrated in Romans 4:6-12.

 

Of course you believe exactly what you have stated as defined as you have stated.However, the devil is in the details of your definitions. Your definitions deny that actual justification as the Bible defines it, which is inclusive of imputed righteousness and complete remission of sins occurred before the cross. That is why you have them in a holding pattern or in limbo in hades.

So, you sincerely believe what you stated, and you sincerely believe the Bible supports your definitions but you are simply sincerely wrong and Romans 3-5 is iron clad proof your sincere view is sincerely wrong!

So I am not being dishonest at all with your views. I am simply claiming the Bible does not support your views and THAT YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS DEFEND MY ASSESSMENT OF YOUR VIEWS WITH REGARD TO THE TRUE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE (emphasis only). Your views in reality are inconsistent with the Biblical teaching.

Therefore in reality you are denying justification by faith for Old Testament saints because you are denying the Biblical definition of justification of such saints.

At least be honest enough to admit that from my position I am charging you with denying the justification of Old Testament saints according to my sincere interpretation of the Biblical evidence, and thus you can equally claim I am sincere but sincerely wrong.

You deny the biblical view of justification for Abraham (those not under law) and for David (those under the Law) and thus all gospel believers prior to the cross. That is my charge, and I stand by it and will demonstrate it - in spite of your sincere belief that you do not deny their justification. Ok?