-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Being "just" or "righteous"
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
If you are speaking of the Romans 3:24-5:2 context we are speaking of obtaining a moral approval in the sight of God. The proof of this is that Abraham is said not to have been justified before God by "works." This was 430 years before the Law of Moses and therefore it cannot be restricted to the "works" of the Mosaic Law or to obtaining, maintaining ethnic jewishness as no such nation existed with no such laws to draw that kind of boundary in relationship to works. Hence, "works" here by necessity must be everything originating from the body of Abraham within his heart manifested by attitude, then words and actions as Jesus defines evil works in Matthew 15:17 - the heart and its invisible and visible actions. This is furthermore proven by the fact that Romans 1:18-3:8 is summarized in Romans 3:9 as proof that there is no such thing as a Jew or gentile that "is" or "does" good which is further explained in Romans 3:10-20. This moral state is being compared to "the righteousenss of God" (Rom. 3:21) for which "all have...come short of the glory of God." This is further proven by the fact that it is "ungodly" who without works and who "worketh not" (continuous action) is being justified based on faith in God's provision for righteousness in the Person and work of God's Son (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25) thus ALIEN righteousness to the person and position of the "ungodly." This is not based upon spiritual union but upon faith. This is not based upon IMPARTATION through spiritual union or outworking in the body of the justified by "good works" due to being "created in Christ" (Eph. 2:10) but on righteousness being "imputed" or "reckoned" which are unncessary if obtained by direct union with Christ.
This is further proven because Abraham is given as the example of justification by faith for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" and the work of justification is confined as a completed action "in uncircumcision" rather than a continuous action "in circumcision" (Rom. 4:9-11). Aorist tense verbs are used in verse 11 along with perfect tense verbs in Romans 5:1-2.
Hence, the above evidence demonstrates the "ungodly" is being declared righteous on the basis of imputation rather than impartation (by spiritual union or sanctification).
Hey brother.
I am not speaking of any verse in particular, but the definition of being righteous or just.
Well, that depends on the scripture being examined doesn't it. I provided the most essential scripture text on this subject and provided an answer. In other contexts it may mean "made righteous" but never in contexts where personal works are being considered with regard to God's standard of righteousness.
Do you think that there is perhaps consistency of Scripture when it comes to the definition, or is the definition of "righteous" fluid throughout the Bible?
Again, like in most words found in the bible it is a matter of context. I defined the context where it must always mean "declared righteousness" instead of "made righteous." I reject the idea that "justification" merely means abstract "righteous" without any qualifications.
Almost every time "we" speak of being justified, we're only seeing part of the truth.
That's why I mentioned that it's not "or...or...or" It's some of all of those.
And quite frankly, we've really watered down what it means to be not justified.
Just. Right. Fair. Equitable. Maybe more
Being justified refers to being justified by God such that whatever God had, or would have, against us, has been removed by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ. It refers to our spiritual condition, made righteous, and occurs when God puts us spiritually in Christ, a change in our spiritual location. Being justified before God is a gift of grace through the blood of the Lamb.
To be justified is to declared legally righteous. It is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins. It is not that the sinner is now sinless but that he is "declared" sinless. The sinner is not made righteous in that his soul is changed or that his soul is infused with God's grace. Instead, justification is a legal act of imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer (Rom. 4:11, Phil. 3:9).
This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, " . . . having now been justified by His blood . . . " (Rom. 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees him through the sacrifice of Jesus and "sees" him without sin.
This declaration of innocence is not without cost, for it required the satisfaction of God's Law, " . . . without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus and in the "one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men," (Rom. 5:18). In justification, the justice of God fell upon Jesus. We receive mercy. We are not judged according to our sins. And grace is shed upon us. We receive eternal life. This justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24) and by faith (Rom. 3:28) because Jesus bore our guilt (Isaiah 53:12).
https://carm.org/dictionary-theology-intro
This justification is based on the shed blood of Jesus, " . . . having now been justified by His blood . . . " (Rom. 5:9). When God sees the Christian, He sees him through the sacrifice of Jesus and "sees" him without sin.
This declaration of innocence is not without cost, for it required the satisfaction of God's Law, " . . . without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb. 9:22). By the sacrifice of Jesus and in the "one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men," (Rom. 5:18). In justification, the justice of God fell upon Jesus. We receive mercy. We are not judged according to our sins. And grace is shed upon us. We receive eternal life. This justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24) and by faith (Rom. 3:28) because Jesus bore our guilt (Isaiah 53:12).
https://carm.org/dictionary-theology-intro
Do you think this is what James meant when he wrote that Abraham was justified on account of his works? 25 years after being credited with righteous?
His works were open proof (justification) of his faith. He lived what he believed. I fail to see the problem.
The problem is that's nothing like what you first stated justification is.
That view of justification meaning that Abraham's faith was validated is inconsistent with the view that justification means for him to be declared legally righteous.
It's just inconsistent, that's all.
Duh! My former post was addressing Justification before God.
Abraham was justified in the sight of men (IE, proof of his faith).
Completely different subject.
You're the one who typed "to be justified is to [be] declared legally righteous"
No, it doesn't mean that. It can be applied in that way, but doesn't MEAN that.
And that's really what this thread is about - What does justified mean. If one can nail down what that word means, then the definition can take the place of that word in every instance.
And loading the notion of guilt and innocence into the definition of justification is dangerous.
It leads to a view that everything in scripture is a matter of heaven and hell. And that's a view I've seen on display all my life.
What does "mean" mean? Can it be used in any other way?
What does "every" mean? Can it be used in any other way?
What does "dangerous" mean? Can it be used in any other way?
What does "everything" mean? Can it be used in any other way?
This is the kind of anti-intellectual flatulence that is largely responsible for the dumbing down of modern Christendom.
Every word is modified by its context. To fail to understand that is to lack sufficient understanding to carry on intelligent discourse on any subject.
It's not anti-intellectual at all. It's simply an acknowledgement that there's a difference between definition and application.
To say a word means such-and-such is different from saying it can be used in this way or that way.
Everything I've seen in the last few weeks on this board relating to justification has stemmed from discussions about N.T. Wright's NPP
And I said the same thing about where he's been at. He is confusing definition with application. Mulling over various uses of "justified" in the New Testament to derive a single definition which can then be imposed upon every use, regardless of context.
But that's backward and circular. Context doesn't define a word, context indicates application. There first has to be fixed definitions in order to even have a context.
Maybe there are multiple definitions, and context will help determine which one is meant - but context will never create a definition.
No.
1) Abraham's faith, not Abraham himself, was credited as righteousness.
2) The point made in James is that we are justified through "live" faith (faith from which faithfulness flows) rather than "dead" faith. Only "live faith" is credited as righteousness.
No.
1) Abraham's faith, not Abraham himself, was credited as righteousness.
2) The point made in James is that we are justified through "live" faith (faith from which faithfulness flows) rather than "dead" faith. Only "live faith" is credited as righteousness.