The TRUE meaning of biblical Justification

[kyredneck]

James, otoh, uses the word justification to mean “validation”.

Not.

The 'works' that justifies to which James is referring:

27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Ja 1
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ja 2

...are the very works by which ALL are going to be judged.

The just:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

The unjust:

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Mt 25

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2:24

 

[JesusFan]

In part. God tells them to no longer use thar saying.

But God tells them His reason.

His reason was that He (not Israel) would hold the sinner accountable, that He (mot Israel) would forgive based on repentance ("a new heart").


You are not being honest, @JesusFan .

You used the first verse stating it referred to God's judgment. I pointed out that you needed to continue as the passage states much more. Now you are claiming it deals with Israel punishing sons for their father's crimes.

God never saved any lost sinner due to their repenting, its based upon the Cross of Christ and His atonement provided for them there, period

No, not per Scripture.

In the Bible we will be not guilty because we will be conformed to the image of Christ, our old spirit will be gone and a new spirit will be in us, we will be refined as precious metal is refined, we will be made new creations.

Look....I do not blame you for seeking out an "easy believism" faith. I do not blame you for drifting to philosophy. I do not blame at all. That is between you and God.

But I am pointing out that you are leaning on your understanding and dismissing the words coming forth from God.

You should not blame me for that. Anybody can see that you folliw what the men you like say the Bible teaches rather than "what is written" in God's Word. All anybody needs to do is open their Bible and try to underline what you believe.

You make your choice. I have made mine.

I hold to the reformed and baptist teaching regardi ng the Atonement of Christ, and would say VERY biblical

No. Pauline Justification is the words recorded in the Pauline epistles concerning Justification/ righteousness.

People believe those words teach many different things. I believe Paul actually wrote down his teaching.

It refers to how a sinner can get saved and become now a child of God

Not.

The 'works' that justifies to which James is referring:

27 Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. Ja 1
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit? Ja 2

...are the very works by which ALL are going to be judged.

The just:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
36 naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

The unjust:

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Mt 25

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2:24

James refers to how we should act after being saved, not that good works are a cause/part of getting saved

 

[JonC]

I hold to the reformed and baptist teaching regardi ng the Atonement of Christ, and would say VERY biblical

Of course you would say that. But you have proved the opposite (you cannot find your faith in the "words coming forth from God".

God told us what? Lean NOT on your understanding but on every word coming from Him.

 

[kyredneck]

James refers to how we should act after being saved, not that good works are a cause/part of getting saved

Not.

Works/deeds are the very definer of the just and the unjust:

15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

 

[JonC]

It refers to how a sinner can get saved and become now a child of God

I have not said it doesnt....or does. I am saying that you do not speak for Paul. I am saying that you have absolutely no need fir Scripture because you never use the Bible.

What verse states what you are saying?

 

[JonC]

God never saved any lost sinner due to their repenting, its based upon the Cross of Christ and His atonement provided for them there, period

BUT I can and have provided many verses stating otherwise and you have not provided even one stating what you belueve. I even provided verses quoting Jesus (in the Gospels), which you are denying here.


@JesusFan

Should I believe you or should I believe "what is written" in God's Word?

 

[JesusFan]

BUT I can and have provided many verses stating otherwise and you have not provided even one stating what you belueve. I even provided verses quoting Jesus (in the Gospels), which you are denying here.


@JesusFan

Should I believe you or should I believe "what is written" in God's Word?

If there was no shedding of His blood for atonement of sins, repenting would save none , as there MUST be an objective basis provided in order to have a Holy God able to forgive sins

 

[JesusFan]

Of course you would say that. But you have proved the opposite (you cannot find your faith in the "words coming forth from God".

God told us what? Lean NOT on your understanding but on every word coming from Him.

So every reformer and Baptist until you now misunderstood the atonement of Christ then?

Not.

Works/deeds are the very definer of the just and the unjust:

15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

Saved by Grace alone received thru faith alone would be the Baptist, and more importantly, the bible statement on how to get saved

BUT I can and have provided many verses stating otherwise and you have not provided even one stating what you belueve. I even provided verses quoting Jesus (in the Gospels), which you are denying here.


@JesusFan

Should I believe you or should I believe "what is written" in God's Word?

Who and where did you get this understanding, as very few in the past seemed to view this concept as you now are doing

I have not said it doesnt....or does. I am saying that you do not speak for Paul. I am saying that you have absolutely no need fir Scripture because you never use the Bible.

What verse states what you are saying?

Did Jesus drink of that OT Bowl of wrath of God, and was he separated from god on that Cross when he did that?

 

[JonC]

If there was no shedding of His blood for atonement of sins, repenting would save none , as there MUST be an objective basis provided in order to have a Holy God able to forgive sins

I agree on both points here.

Did you respond to me by mistake???

I never claimed that the shedding of Christ's blood was unnecessary fir the forgiveness of sins. I straight out said it was and provided the verse.

BUT you do not hold an objective standard - that is my point.

Your "evidence" for your faith is what a small sect of people say the Bible teaches. It is their (and your) understanding. It is SUBJECTIVE.

My belief is based on the OBJECTIVE Word of God (God's actual words, "what is written")

 

[JonC]

Who and where did you get this understanding, as very few in the past seemed to view this concept as you now are doing

From the Bible (it is literally the words of God). But reading other writings I also see it was the only Christian view for centuries (there were differences in focus, but this was the common Christian view).

I will state, again, for the fifth time in two weeks, my view (the one you find so new and strange). I will include the references so that you can check to see where it departs from God's Word:

My view (which you think is so unbiblical and foreign to the Christian faith):


God created Adam (man) from the dust, planted a Garden and placed Adam there. God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2). Adam transgressed God’s command and his eyes were opened (Gen 3:6-7). God told Adam that because of his transgression he would work the land (the land was cursed) until he died, for he was dust and to dust he would return (Gen 3:19). God told the Serpent that he would put enmity between him and the woman, and between their offspring, that He would crush its head and he would strike His heel (Gen 3:15).

Adam had become like God, knowing good and evil. So that he would not take from the Tree of Life and live forever, God cast Adam out of the Garden, back to the place from which he was created (Gen 3:21-24).
Through Adam’s sin death entered the world and spread to all man, for all have sinned Rom 5:12). Sin was in the world before God gave the Law, but sin was not charged against people as a transgression as they did not break a command (vs. 15). Nevertheless, death reigned even where there was no law because of sin.

Just as through the disobedience of one man, Adam the many were made sinners , so also through the obedience of the one man, Christ, the many will be made righteous (Rom 5:18-19).

The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), for sin produces death (James 1:15). Death spread to all because all have sinned (Romans 5:12). It is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. (Heb 9:27). I believe that God became man (truly man) like us but without sin (Heb 4:15). He bore our sins bodily on the cross (1 Peter 2:24).
God became one of us (Heb 2:11-13) so that we would become like Him (Jn 15:4; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 3:18) and share in His glory (Rom 8:17).

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:23). The second statement (the gift of God) does not nullify the first (the wages of sin), because sin produces death (James 1:15). But it does remove the sting of death (1 Cor 15:55) because although we die yet shall we live (John 11:25).

 

[JonC]

Did Jesus drink of that OT Bowl of wrath of God, and was he separated from god on that Cross when he did that?

Of course not. And you mean "cup", not "bowl".


There is no verse in the Bible that says Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath. You are mixing man's words with God's words.

In the Bible Jesus drank the cup, and He told James and John that they would also drink from that cup.

In the Bible "the cup" is what is to come. In the OT sometimes it is wrath, and sometimes it is blessings.

The "bowls of wrath" are the final judgments in Revelation.

Also, Jesus cannot be separated from God. Jesus IS God. He dies not change. He is always God. And He and the Father are One.

 

[Charlie24]

Not.

Works/deeds are the very definer of the just and the unjust:

15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust. Acts 24

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

So that everyone understands and are not misled.

"Doing good" is a matter of works, but works can be directed in 2 ways.

We can set our minds to works to get saved or we can set our minds to works because we are saved.

If we set our minds to do works to get saved we have made a grave mistake.

Rom. 4:4-5

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

"Doing good" in John 5:29 are the works because we are saved, not to get saved.

Works to get saved are not counted for righteousness!

 

[JesusFan]

Of course not. And you mean "cup", not "bowl".


There is no verse in the Bible that says Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath. You are mixing man's words with God's words.

In the Bible Jesus drank the cup, and He told James and John that they would also drink from that cup.

In the Bible "the cup" is what is to come. In the OT sometimes it is wrath, and sometimes it is blessings.

The "bowls of wrath" are the final judgments in Revelation.

Also, Jesus cannot be separated from God. Jesus IS God. He dies not change. He is always God. And He and the Father are One.

Not while he was the sin bearer upon that Cross, as what he feared came to pass, as he felt the isolation of being apart from very presense of God

 

[JesusFan]

Of course not. And you mean "cup", not "bowl".


There is no verse in the Bible that says Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath. You are mixing man's words with God's words.

In the Bible Jesus drank the cup, and He told James and John that they would also drink from that cup.

In the Bible "the cup" is what is to come. In the OT sometimes it is wrath, and sometimes it is blessings.

The "bowls of wrath" are the final judgments in Revelation.

Also, Jesus cannot be separated from God. Jesus IS God. He dies not change. He is always God. And He and the Father are One.

Bowl of wrath was OT prophets term for certain wrath and judge,memt coming in the 'Great Day of the Lord"

 

[kyredneck]

Doing good" in John 5:29 are the works because we are saved, not to get saved.

Works to get saved are not counted for righteousness!

So that everyone understands, this is about justification, NOT ‘saved’, which evangelicals have totally glommed up the meaning of.

 

[JonC]

Bowl of wrath was OT prophets term for certain wrath and judge,memt coming in the 'Great Day of the Lord"

Lol....."Bowl of wrath" is not found in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament and New Testsment there is "the cup". This refers to what is to come. It could be wrath. But it could be blessings. This is where the hymn "Fill My Cup" comes from.

In the Old Testament David speaks of "the cup" as a cup of prosperity snd blessing.

In 1 Corinthians Paul soeaks of "the cup" as a cup of blessings.


There is no "Bowl of wrath" in the Old Testament.

 

[JonC]

Not while he was the sin bearer upon that Cross, as what he feared came to pass, as he felt the isolation of being apart from very presense of God

No...that is heresy. Jesus was God - He snd the Father are One - even (and notabily) on the Cross.

And this cup that Jesus told James abd John He was going to drink is the one He told them they would share.

Where are you getting these ideas???

 

[Charlie24]

So that everyone understands, this is about justification, NOT ‘saved’, which evangelicals have totally glommed up the meaning of.

Well, we disagree, but I'm not going to argue, K.

 

[kyredneck]

this cup that Jesus told James abd

…was death. He died, and God raised Him from the dead.

 

[Paleouss]

Some her to see it as if we are all commended to death, but once we ask the Judge to forgive us, he can just pardon us period, but the truth is someone still has to serve and fulfill that death penalty, same way Jesus died in our place and our stead

Greetings again JesusFan. Hope and peace to you and yours.

I'd like to challenge the notion that "but the truth is someone still has to serve and fulfill the death penalty".

Is this really true regarding justice?

If a man in Nebraska is convicted of a murder and is sentenced to death. But while he sets on death row the Governor issues him a pardon and sets him free. Assuming the Governor went through all the right channels of the law...does after the pardon is issued, justice cry out... someone must die?

God shows all creation that he is not only the "justifier" but He is also "just" (Rom 3:26) and He stops all mouths by doing this. But to say that His pardon is not enough and justice cries out "someone must die" for the sake of "justice" ... this seems incorrect. Only in an eye-for-an-eye would this type of justice seem to make sense.

If you would hold on I'll try and present the reframe I am attempting to make. It seems to me that regarding the satisfaction of the law there is only one major hurdle after a legal pardon for those that would be granted the gift of salvation, i.e., the standard of purity it represents for entrance into heaven.

The pardon can possibly be seen as simply a legal matter. But the standard it represents to be 'on the other side' of condemnation is steep. A standard that even after the legal matter of a pardon, man cannot attain.

To expand on this 'other side' language. On one side is sin and condemnation (where we once sat), on the other purity and righteousness. Now God can pardon however he pleases (He pleased to pardon by faith), however, a simple legal pardon only moves those that believe in the legal sense, not the practical sense. Being pardoned in the legal sense doesn't move us to the other side in the practical sense.

Jesus must accomplish more than just a legal pardon. He must take on our sin (the power of it) and give us, lay upon us, His righteousness.

To summarize. The law has two hurdles... (a) the legal condemnation, and (b) the standard it represents for right standing and entrance into heaven. In the legal sense, the law only requires a pardon to avoid condemnation. In the practical sense, the power of our individual sins must be taken on by Christ and He then must lay upon us His righteousness. In this sense, the law's representation of the standard of heaven and right standing is satisfied.


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)