A few questions about JUSTIFICATION

I bet Justified would know...Justified...are you lurking?

 

1. To be justified is to be aquitted -- pronounced "not gulity" -- before God.

2. All those who trust in the saving work of Christ are justified.

3. They are justified on the basis of the righteousness of Christ having been imputed to them.

4. We can know that we are justified now as soon as we trust in Christ as our Lord and Savior (e.g. Rom.3:24, 5:1), but technically this is advance knowledge of a pronouncement that awaits the future judgment (Rom.2:13). The future verdict has already been made for all who trust in Christ.

5. We receive the benefits of forgiveness of sins, power to overcome sin in our daily lives, the certainty of the redemption of our bodies in the resurrection, peace with God with no fear that we will experience His wrath -- in short, all the blessings of salvation.

[ December 12, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

well replied.

 

Justified=Being born at 6:30am on Thanksgiving, 1954
Justified=48 yrs old
Justified=saved at 33
Justified=married,25 yrs Christmas Eve
Justified=father of 12, 9 here, 3 w/Lord
Justified=KJB only
Justified=member of a Baptist Church
Justified=???

Plus everything else that was said.

[ December 12, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

Couldn't agree more... I might add that Christ' righteousness is the propitiation for our sin on a daily basic... We have all sinned and come short, thank God that he gave his only son that we may have a guiltless conscience in a condemned world....

 

Justified; Just as if I never sinned

 

That's good.

 

And that too!

Merry Christmas!

 

Christs perfect, propitiatory sacrifice, in our stead at the cross of Calvary. His fulfilling the will of the father met all requirements as substitutionary atonemnent for the elect of God.

 

James spoke of justification before men, not before God. And that justification before men I believe is first and foremost before those of the household of faith, because those not belonging to the household of faith do not in general recognize true believers, like as John says in his first epistle. And the justification before men is by means of good works having been wrought in God. And those good works are not what most professors think they are, viz. stop smoking, stop boozing etc. In my country if one should ask a so called atheist or some so called un-churched person what a Christian is like they would first of all say a Christian is one who does not smoke, does not drink alcohol, does not watch TV, goes to church each Sunday, reads the Bible regularly etc. But the word of God does not say such things characterize a Christian in the first place, or distinguish a Christian from non-Christians. Most legalistic religionists are characterized by those things, but they are not Christians as the Bible defines such a person. John the apostle summed up in one place what a Christian is, and said it is one abiding in the doctrine (or, teaching) of the Christ, 2John 9. This abiding is the work of the Spirit of Christ and the evidence of a person having been saved by the grace of Christ, and in this abiding in Christ's doctrine is included everything that the Scripture includes in it. In my country professors rave when one uses this specific verse and begin to talk about "dead orthodoxy" and say such who are occupied with the doctrine of Christ have no love. But they do not understand that one abiding in Christ's doctrine or teaching also abides in agape love because this is included in what Christ taught and blesses His own with. Only fools set Christ's love against Christ's doctrine.

Harald

 

"I am wondering how justification differs from forgiveness (or remission) of sins. Is forgiveness the negative side of the coin--removing the penalty of sin on the basis of our identification with Christ's death, and justification the positive side--declaring us righteous based upon our identification with Christ's obedience?"

You might say that justifcation is the techinical/forensic side of the issue and forgiveness is the relational side. Justification ivolves a new status before God. Forgivenes implies a new quality of relationship.

"The benefit I have been thinking about lately is our adoption. It seems to me that becoming heirs has to be based upon our justification. We can become sons and daughters only because we are seen as righteous."

This is correct. Adoption "follows" justifcation. Always.

"Another question: Does scripture ever use the word "justify" in reference to the salvation process in a non-legal way? I am thinking mainly of James. What does he mean when he uses the word?"

James is not thinking of jsutifcation in the same way that Paul does. Paul's use of justification refers to the initial transfer of the individual from the realm of this age into the realm of the age to come, a transfer from being slavs of sin to slaves of God. This transfer is based on faith in the work of Christ, and works of ours have no place in this initial transfer at all.

James on the other hand uses justifcation still in a forensic way, but to refer to a judgment that takes into account the facts of the case. Sucha judgment of jsutifcation ocurs becuase the individual vcan in fact be demonstrated to be righteous. In such a judgment, the individual's works, of necessity, are in full view and vital.

In James, this judgment takes place at the Parousia of Christ, the last judgment. So what James is referring to is the final judgment, when a person's life will be able to show evidence of the righteouness imputed to them at the time of their faith and initial transfer to the realm of God. James is saying thatat the last judgment a declaration will be made about the righteousness (or lack thereof) of an individual's lfe. Those claiming that they have been justified in the Pauline sense because they claim to have "faith" while showing no evidence of it in righteous living will get a shock at the final judgment. They will find that the lack of righteous living will be evidence that teir faith was not a faith that justifes in the Pauline sense. Their faith which produced no works is dead, and such a faith cannot save.

I see many people try to say that James is disagreeing with Paul as Pau speaks in Romans 3. I believe that James is actually agreeing with Paul as Paul writes in Romans 6.

It is not often noted, but James writes in a very pracical vein, not theoretical, which connects much better to Romans 6 than Roamns3 which is much more theory.

"What is the grounds for our justification?"

What Scott Bushey said.

 

I recognise that this is biblical, but I've never heard it described exactly this way before. So the cross, in effect, introduces the realm of the age to come into this age, and we are transferred from one to the other when we are justified.</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Yo find the idea present in much of Paul but especially Romans, if not by that exact phrase. You go from being in Adam to being in Christ, from slaves to sin to slaves of righteousness, from in the flesh to in the Spirit. You get the idea.

 

Russell,

Sorry I didn't get back with an answer to your questions. I was unable to get much time due to being busy and health issues (I have had to spend a lot of time laying down). However, Harald and Latreia did a good job of answering. God Bless!

Pastork

 

its been explained pretty good already

But I have some time so here's my whacko viewpoint

I see forgiveness as the first step in the cleansing/adopting process - Sin and Holiness cannot co-exist - first we are cleansed, scrubbed raw so we have tender pinkish flesh - Here's where it gets tricky since justification is also part forgiveness in its declaring not guilty or absolving - but it is also while removing the negative - it is assigning a positive - it is saying that this man is just/righteous - It is assigning us the cloak of Christ - Currently we dont fit very well into the cloak - but as we are sanctified we will come to fit it perfectly

 

This isn't a true statement if you take it at face value. In your definition, it is the same as innocense. Being justified isn't the same thing as acquittal. Justification is God declaring righteous (something innocent people are not) the believing sinner.

 

PreachtheWord,

I am not sure what you are driving at when you say that "Being justified isn't the same thing as acquittal. Justification is God declaring righteous (something innocent people are not) the believing sinner." First, how is it that an innocent person would not be righteous? And why exactly are you saying this? Second, I don't know why you do not see justification as adequately described as "acquittal", given that it is an equivalent legal term in English for what Paul has in mind when he uses the Greek term dikaioo. Paul is speaking of a verdict which is the opposite of a guilty finding, which he describes by use of the term katakrino ("condemn") or katakrima ("condemnation"). Of course, I would agree that this justification involves not only the negative concept of finding one 'not guilty', but also the positive declaration of righteousness. As I see it, they are two sides of the same coin, and when you have said one you have essentially said the other. I would also assert that this justification comes about only because of the righteousness of Christ having been imputed to the believing sinner. Thus, we are not declared righteous because of our own righteousness, but only because of the righteousness of Christ. Is this the way you would understand things? If not, where do you think my understanding needs to be improved?

Pastork