Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

[stan the man]

"This temple is holier than that; for it glistened not with gold and silver, but with the grace of the Spirit, and in place of the ark and the cherubim, it had Christ, and His Father, and the Paraclete seated within. But now all is changed, and the temple is desolate, and bare of its former beauty and comeliness, unadorned with its divine and unspeakable adornments, destitute of all security and protection; it has neither door nor bolt, and is laid open to all manner of soul-destroying and shameful thoughts; and if the thought of arrogance or fornication, or avarice, or any more accursed than these, wish to enter in there is no one to hinder them; whereas formerly, even as the Heaven is inaccessible to all these, so also was the purity of thy soul."
John Chrysostom,To the Fallen Theodore,Letter 1(A.D. 378),in NPNF1,IX:91

"But these sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it--or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail. But Novatus, you say, would not receive those who lapsed in the persecution. What do you mean by this? If they were unrepentant he was right; I too would refuse to receive those who either would not stoop at all or not sufficiently, and who would refuse to make their amendment counterbalance their sin; and when I do receive them, I will assign them their proper place; but if he refused those who wore themselves away with weeping, I will not imitate him."
Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration on the Holy Lights,39:19(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,VII:359


"These are capital sins, brethren,these are mortal."
Pacian of Barcelona,Penance,4(A.D. 385),in JUR,II:143


"Let us admonish each other. Let us correct each other, that we may not go to the other world as debtors, and then, needing to borrow of others, suffer the fate of the foolish virgins, and fall from immortal salvation."
John Chrysostom,Concerning Statues,21(A.D. 387),in NPNF1,IX:363


"Some offences are light, some heavy. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe a farthing. We shall have to give account of the idle word no less than of adultery; but it is not the same thing to be put to the blush, and to be put upon the rack, to grow red in the face and to ensure lasting torment. Do you think I am merely expressing my own views? Hear what the Apostle John says: 'He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him? 'You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins.' "
Jerome,Against Jovianus,2:30(A.D. 393),in NPNF2,VI:411


"And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself says, 'No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,' and those who by their tender age were unable to believe, but might be absolved from original sin by the sole layer of regeneration, and yet have not received this laver, and have perished in death: are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation."
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,12(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:476


"The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them. But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore are not called according to God's purpose, and thus are not elected"
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,16(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:478


"It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children--whom He has regenerated in Christ--to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also."
Augustine,On Rebuke and Grace,18(A.D. 427),in NPNF2,V:478


"Let the inquirer still go on, and say, 'Why is it that to some who have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?' Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubtless they would have continued with us.' Are there, then, two natures of men? By no means. If there were two natures there would not be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none if it were paid as a debt to nature. But it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure."
Augustine,On the Gift of Perseverance,19(A.D. 429),in NPNF2,V:531-532


"The manifold mercy of God so assists men when they fall, that not only by the grace of baptism but also by the remedy of penitence is the hope of eternal life revived, in order that they who have violated the gifts of the second birth, condemning themselves by their own judgment, may attain to remission of their crimes, the provisions of the Divine Goodness having so ordained that GOD'S indulgence cannot be obtained without the supplications of priests. For the Mediator between GOD and men, the Man Christ Jesus, has transmitted this power to those that are set over the Church that they should both grant a course of penitence to those who confess, and, when they are cleansed by wholesome correction admit them through the door of reconciliation to communion in the sacraments."
Pope Leo the Great[regn A.D. 440-461],To Theodore,Epistle 108:2(A.D. 452),NPNF2,XII:80


"The branches of the vine. Thus there are branches in the vine, not that they may bestow anything upon the vine, but that they may receive from it the means by which they may live...And by this it is an advantage to the disciples,not to Christ,that each have Christ abiding in him, and that each abide in Christ. For if the branch is cut off, another can sprout forth from the living root; but that which has been cut off, cannot live without the root."
Council of Orange,Canon 24(A.D. 529),in DEN,79-80


"And they who mourn their transgressions certainly cast forth by confession the wickedness with which they have been evilly satiated, and which oppressed the inmost parts of their soul; and yet, in recurring to it after confession, they take it in again. But the sow, by wallowing in the mire when washed, is made more filthy. I And one who mourns past transgressions, yet forsakes them not, subjects himself to the penalty of more grievous sin, since he both despises the very pardon which he might have won by his weeping, and as it were rolls himself in miry water; because in withholding purity of life from his weeping he makes even his very tears filthy before the eyes of God."
Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Pastoral Rule,30(A.D. 591),in NPNF2,XII:62


"The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and illumination s of another life. It behoves as, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works."
John of Damascus,On the Orthodox Faith,4:9(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:78

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Stan the man: Hebrews 11:8 already showed that justification is a process, and James 2:21-23 merely confirms that fact.)

HP: I indeed do concur that justification is indeed a process that begins with repentance and faith, is now maintained and established by present obedience, and it will be consummated when our faith is turned to sight in the world yet to come. Salvation or justification is thought of in three senses, not one. We have been saved, we currently are being saved, and we will be saved in the future.

Let it be clearly noted that nothing we do is meritorious in nature, in that it would serve as the grounds of our justification, but just the same we will not be saved apart from our will choosing righteousness and benevolence as opposed to selfishness and sin. Our works are always thought of in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.'

The only grounds for salvation is the mercy of God via the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Just the same, there are conditions we must fulfill in order to have that mercy and grace applied to our life. Salvation is indeed a process that will not see its culmination until our coronation day. In the meantime we are warned to make our calling and election sure and to examine ourselves to see if in fact we are of the faith.

Yes we indeed can have an assurance that we have been saved, if in fact we continue in the faith in loving benevolence. “Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”

 

[Faith alone]

stan the man,

Stay silent for awhile, then explode with 3 posts huh?

I do not agree that Hebrews 11:8 says that justification is a process. Where in those verses is justification even mentioned? What is mentioned is the entire "salvation" process, which as Heavenly Pilgrim said is past, present and future tense. But it is not future or present tense that is referred to as justification. Where do we see that in scripture?

Hebrew 11:8-10 By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed and went out to a place he was going to receive as an inheritance; he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

I've already posted in detail on James 2:21-24.

Salvation is not consummated at the return of Christ - our salvation is. And Pilgrim, there is no assurance of sslvation if we must "continue in the faith" as a requirement.

You mentioned future aspects for justification in the following verses...

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Rom 2:13)

"For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20)

context:
Romans 2:12, 13 All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For the hearers of the law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous

Now here Paul is saying that the law does not justify anyone just by attempting to do it. Those who actually do it 100% of the time at theend of their lives would be declared righteous ("justified"). But of course, as Paul makes clear later, no one can do so. He is talking hypothetically to show that no one can be justified by obeying the law. We must all seek the justification which comes by faith alone.

In Romans 3:20 above Paul says just that - no one will be justified in God's sight by works of the law since the purpose of the law is to reveal our sin - no one can follow it fully. Now granted such justification based on works would necessaarily need to wait until the end of the person's life since they would have to be 100% faithful IOT be declared righteous based on following the Law. Justification by faith poccurs at the moment of faith.


Sorry... ran out of time. It's late. Have to continue this later. (Got myself embrawled in another thread with someone who is very rude and unprofessional.)

Thx,

FA

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

I just want to forewarn people that, the posts that will be titled Past, Present, and Future will have some of what I posted in posts 198 & 199. I just want to present it in a organized manner.

I (and Catholics) tend to focus on salvation as a future event, something that has yet to happen. As a result, the question, "Have you been saved?" can sound presumptuous. But the question sounds very natural to Protestant ears because Evangelicals tend to conceive of salvation as a past event, something that happens to the believer at the very beginning of his life as a Christian.

Both of these conceptions of salvation—as a past and as a future event—are found in the Bible. As a result, both the common Protestant and Catholic views of salvation reflect parts of the Biblical idea of salvation. For example, the idea of salvation as a past event is present in passages such as Ephesians 2:5, which states that "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (all Scripture quotations NKJV)

Since this passage speaks of salvation in the past tense, something that has been done to us, it is conceiving of salvation as a past reality.

But this is only one aspect of salvation. There is an ongoing aspect to salvation as well, as is indicated in 1st Peter 1:8-9, which states, " ... Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving ... the salvation of your souls."

The same idea of salvation as something that is taking place presently is found in the writings of the St. Paul as well, for example, in Philippians 2:12 he states,

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"

Salvation in the Bible is therefore also a process which is still being worked out in the life of the believer's life. And it is a process which will not be finally completed until the Last Day, as is indicated by St. Paul in the following passages:

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Romans 5:9-10)

"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Romans 13:11)

"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Corinthians 3:15)

" ... deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Corinthians 5:5)

These verses all speak of salvation in the future tense, as something that will happen to us in the future. Therefore, salvation has past, present, and future aspects or dimensions.

If I were to offer a general definition of salvation, including its past, present, and future dimensions, I would say something like, "Salvation is a process which begins when a person first becomes a Christian, which continues through the rest of his life, and which concludes on the Last Day." This definition allows the faithful Christian to do justice to all of the Biblical data by saying, "I have been saved; I am being saved; and I will be saved." It embraces all three of the aspects of salvation which are present in the biblical literature.

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

In addition to salvation as a whole, Scripture also speaks of individual aspects of salvation called redemption, forgiveness, sanctification, and justification. These share the same past, present, and future dimensions that salvation as a whole does.

First of all, redemption is sometimes spoken of as a present possession of believers, which means that they were redeemed sometime in the past:

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

"He has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:13-14)

These verses indicate redemption was given to the Christian at the beginning of his life with God, when he first entered Christ ("in" him and "in" whom we have redemption). But there is yet a future redemption awaiting us, for we also read in Scripture:

"Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." (Luke 21:28)

"And not only they, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for ... the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23)

[The Holy Spirit] "is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:14)

"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30)

Therefore, redemption, like salvation in general, is something that occurs at different points in the Christian's life. There are no references in Scripture to redemption as a present process, but given the past and future dimensions of redemption, one may wish to infer that there is a sense in which we are "being redeemed" at the present time.

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

There are numerous places in Scripture which speak of our forgiveness as something which has already occurred to us. For example:

"In Him we have ... the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Ephesians 1:7)

"And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

" ... in whom we have ... the forgiveness of sins." (Colossians 1:14)

" ... bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do." (Colossians 3:13)

These passages show that forgiveness is something that has happened to us in the past, but there are also passages which speak of forgiveness as something which we must continue to appropriate. For example,

"And forgive us our debts [present tense], As we forgive our debtors." (Matthew 6:12)

"And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (James 5:15)

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1John 1:9)

Therefore forgiveness, like the other aspects of salvation, is something which is both a past event and a present process. And we know that this process will not ultimately reach its fulfillment until we finally find mercy from the Lord on the Last Day, when our sins will be firmly, finally, and forever declared forgiven. This is mentioned by Paul when he says concerning Onesiphorus,

"The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day ... " (2Timothy 1:18)

As a result, there is a sense in which forgiveness (God's mercy in this passage) is something that has yet to be realised. Therefore, forgiveness is therefore something which has past, present, and future dimensions.

 

[BobRyan]

Very true Stan.

 

[BobRyan]

Justification in Romans 5:1 is "an event" that is "past tense".

"HAVING BEEN Justified we HAVE peace with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

But in Romans 2:11-13 it is also FUTURE "For it is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED".

FUTURE justification is corporate and objective and based on the books of Dan 7 where at the conclusion "Judgment is passed IN FAVOR of the saints".

So although that future process has not completed - the PAST EVENT of justification (our being saved) is indeed a past event.

Instead of believing one side of this and rejecting the other - why not accept BOTH?!!

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

Evangelicals often place a great deal of emphasis on sanctification as a present process which Christians undergo. However, many in the Wesleyan tradition (Methodism, Holiness churches, the Church of the Nazarene, and some Pentecostal churches) tend to emphasize sanctification as a single event which occurs in the life of the believer. Both groups are correct in this. Sanctification is both a process and an event in our lives.

First, let me show you verses which indicate sanctification as a past event in the Christian's life:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1Corinthians 6:11)

"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29)

These verses indicate the occurrence of sanctification as a past event in the life of the believer. But it is not only a past event, but also a present, ongoing process, as the following verses indicate:

"Finally then, brethren, we urge and exhort in the Lord Jesus that you should abound more and more, just as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God ... For this is ... your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality ... " (1Thessalonians 4:1, 3)

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1Thessalonians 5:23)

"For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:11)

"For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14)

(In addition to these passages, see 12:2, 13:14, 2 Corinthians 4:16, and Ephesians 4:21-25.)

There is therefore abundant reason to say that sanctification is an ongoing process as well as a past event in the life of the believer. But what about sanctification as a future event in the life of the believer? It is harder to come up with verses for this kind of sanctification, but that such sanctification exists may be easily deduced.

I know from various places in Scripture that we continue to stumble and sin all the way through the rest of this life, but I also know that we will not sin after we have been made perfect either at the Last Day or at our deaths, whichever comes first. Therefore, when that event occurs, we will be made holy in the sense that we no longer sin at all, and since sanctification is being made holy, when this even occurs we will be sanctified. Therefore, there is a future event of sanctification in the life of the believer as well as a past and a present sanctification.

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

Justification in the Bible
First, here are some verses showing justification as a past event:

"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand..." (Romans 5:1-2)

"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him." (Romans 5:9)

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (1Corinthians 6:11)

Justification is therefore clearly a past event in the life of the believer. Unfortunately, most Protestants have camped out on verses which imply this and have concluded that justification is a once-for-all event, rather than also being an ongoing and not yet completed process.

But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.

One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). (Since the term "righteousness" is the same word in Greek and Hebrew as "justification," when Paul use this passage in his writings, he advances it as a proof-text on justification; see Rom. 4:2-3.) This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.

Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

First, the book of Hebrews tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.

But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive." The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac. (Some often object to this understanding of James 2, claiming that in that passage Abraham was said to be justified before men rather than before God. There are abundant exegetical reasons why this is not the case. Abraham was justified before God by offering Isaac. But once people recognizes that the Bible teaches in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham was already justified before he was justified in Genesis 15:6, there is not nearly so much motive to try to twist James 2:21-23 into meaning something else. Hebrews 11:8 already showed that justification is a process, and James 2:21-23 merely confirms that fact.) The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.

Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer's life. This is shown by passages in Scripture where Paul indicates that there is a sense in which our justification is still future:

" ... for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Romans 2:13)

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)

Commenting on the second of these passages, the famous Protestant exegete, James D. G. Dunn points out that Paul's statement alludes to Psalm 142:2 and then remarks,

"The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgement is to the fore ... Against the view that Paul sees 'justification' simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer's life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life ..." (James Dunn, "Romans," Word Biblical Commentary, (DallasWord Books, 1988), vol. 38a, 153.)

But even apart from such verses, I could deduce a future justification on theological grounds alone. Protestants place much emphasis on the declarative aspect of justification (i.e., God declaring one righteous) and they have places special emphasis on the legal/courtroom contexts in which this declaration may occur. However, the ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So I may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life. We certainly are declared righteous by God in this life, but the final, consummating declaration of our righteousness will not occur until our Final Judgement, and therefore our final justification will not occur until this time. As a result, there remains a future justification for all believers.

 

[stan the man]

Past, Present, and Future

Justification in Protestant Teaching
As I said, Protestants generally conceive of justification purely as a state rather than also as a process. However, there are a number of recent Protestant scholars, such as James D.G. Dunn, E. Sanders, and Dale Moody, who recognize the fact that it is a process. (See Dunn, Commentary on Romans and Jesus, Paul, and the Law; Moody, The Word of Truth; Sanders, Paul, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, and Paul and Palestinian Judaism; and Zeisler, Pauline Christianity.) What most Protestants do not know, even those who keep up with what contemporary Bible scholars are saying, is that some of the early Reformers also conceived of justification as a process in addition to being a state.

For example, the Swiss Reformer Martin Bucer regarded man as receiving a two-fold justification. First he received the iustificatio impii, or primary justification, in which he was declared righteous before God, and then he received the iustificatio pii, or secondary justification, in which he was actually made to behave righteously. (See Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis et enarratio in epist. D. Pauli ad Romanos.)

But what most Protestants don't know is that the very first Protestant of them all—Martin Luther—also held justification to be a process as well as a state. The well-known Luther scholar, Paul Althaus, summarizes Luther's position as follows:

"Luther uses the terms 'to justify' ... and 'justification' ... in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther's writings], justification most often means the judgement of God with which he declares man to be righteous ... . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man's actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality. This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther's early and later theology; he uses 'justification' in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text." (Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1966), 226.)

Luther himself wrote,

"For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness." (Luther's Works, 34, 52, cited in Althaus, 237, n. 63.)

and

"Our justification is not yet complete ... . It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead." (Weimarer Ausgabe, 391, 252, cited in Althaus, 237, n. 63.)

I therefore see that, even though most Protestants deny that justification is a process as well as a state, many contemporary Protestant scholars, as some of the early Protestant Reformers, as well as the first Protestant of them all, recognized the justification was also a process.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Stan the man: I therefore see that, even though most Protestants deny that justification is a process as well as a state, many contemporary Protestant scholars, as some of the early Protestant Reformers, as well as the first Protestant of them all, recognized the justification was also a process.

HP: You have done some excellent research into the Scriptures and present the case very well. I have some exceptions to take in a couple of areas though. First, Arminians, such as Nazarenes and Methodists, the Holiness movement in general, do in fact agree that salvation is a process, at least from man’s finite perspective, the perspective we are bound to in this world and held to by faith. I believe you could find little to disagree with most of the Arminians on the points you make, sanctification being a possible source of at least some differences.

I would like to address sanctification with you as I have time. I believe you are overlooking many pertinent verses of present tense reality that presents the life of the sanctified believer in this present world something other than a stumbling sinner continuously falling into sin. I am pressed for time at this moment but in time the Lord willing we can look into this area if you are so inclined.

Thanks again for the good work you have done on salvation as a one time event as well as present and future. Our present duty as believers is to walk in such a way before the Lord as to make our walk as sure as the initial entrance into the faith we in past tense have experienced. In that initial experience, “old things were passed away and behold all things became new.” May it be continuously so as we continue our present walk with the Master and Savior of our souls. If we do this and continue on in our first estate as believers, our future salvation will be found in the last day to be secure. That is my ultimate sure and firm assurance. Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: I would like to see those on the list such as Stan and others, try to pinpoint the notions of theological error that precipitate a false idea of salvation being ONLY a one time event, settled in stone from the initial entrance point of salvation. This has been an ongoing process for myself, to try and find those subtle presuppositions held by those who believe as such, and to address those issues so as to expose the error at its very core.

If all eternal sanctions for moral choices end at salvation, morality ceases as well. If man is born in such a state as to render it impossible for him to be anything other than what he is, it is impossible to avoid necessitated fatalism, including that which lies at the heart of the thinking of those believing in salvation as a one time event written in stone. Selah.

 

[Faith alone]

Much of this is terminology. Justification is not a process - it is being declared to be righteous, and genuinely treated as such, not being made righteous. Sanctification is both a process and a state. There are verses which clearly refer to the state of being holy, set apart for a holy purpose. But there are other verses which refer to sanctification as a process - the process of becoming in reality what we were designed to be.

Hebrews 10:14 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica](NIV) because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Hebrews 10:14 (HCSB) [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified.

"Perfected" ("completed" - red) is in the perfect tense, indicating something that happened at a point in time in the past - it's punctiliar there (when we trusted in Christ for eternal life) with a state which continues into the present. As a result of faith in Christ's death we were perfected and remain in a state of having been perfected. The perfect tense refers to an action that happened at a point-in-time in the past, with an existing state. O---------> is used to represent this kind of action.

"Being made holy" (green) is translated as "are sanctified" in the HCSB and "are being made holy" in the NIV. It is a present passive participle indicating something which is happening to the person in the present. "Being made holy" or "being sanctified" expresses this idea. -----> is used to represent this linear kind of action in the present. It could refer to a process.

I like this verse because both the idea of initial sanctification at the time we believed is there as well as the process of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]sanctification[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]. Now I see no scripture which refers to the process of justification, and it would make no sense - because DIKAIOW does not refer to being made righteous, but being declared righteous, as in a court of law. It is a forensic term. The judge cannot declare someone to be not guilty over a period of time - either he is not guilty or he is guilty at the moment the judge makes the declaration and bangs his gavel.

But sanctification is a different story. And of course these are all terms used to describe what God did at the moment we believed [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]and became children of God as well as the work of His Spirit in our lives now, as we cooperate with Him. But I see no case where justification is described in scripture as a process.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica] Justification happens when we believe. We do not cooperate with God IOT be justified. He justified us. It is something which God did, not us. We merely accepted the gift.

So I think perhaps we should refer to the process of being made righteous as "progressive sanctification," as some theologians prefer, and we have no conflict here. The issue with progressive justification, besides it not being found in scripture IMO, is that it turns justification as something which we cooperate with God to bring about, and hence it is something which we can brag about. But Ephesians 2:8, 9 says that we are saved by grace through faith, and that (salvation) not of ourselves. Instead it is a gift of God, not as a result of any works we do, so no one can boast. If justification was progressive, Ephesians 2:8 and 9 could not be true.

No boasting allowed.

Pilgrim: we are referring to justification being a point-in-time kind of event, not salvation. Big difference. Salvation encompasses justification, sanctification and glorification - all terms describing an aspect of salvation, and yes, I agree: salvation is a process.

FA
[/FONT]

 

[Faith alone]

Justification in Romans 5:1 is "an event" that is "past tense".

"HAVING BEEN Justified we HAVE peace with God through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

But in Romans 2:11-13 it is also FUTURE "For it is not the hearers of the law that are just before God but the DOERS of the Law WILL BE JUSTIFIED".

FUTURE justification is corporate and objective and based on the books of Dan 7 where at the conclusion "Judgment is passed IN FAVOR of the saints".

So although that future process has not completed - the PAST EVENT of justification (our being saved) is indeed a past event.

Instead of believing one side of this and rejecting the other - why not accept BOTH?!!

Here's how I see Romans 2:11ff, FWIW:

IF justification were based on works, then God must wait until the end of our life to determine whether or not He will declare us to be righteous. And that is what Paul is arguing in those verses... those who try to be justified based on their works have to obey the Law 100%. But fortunately justification is based not on works, but upon faith. Hence the moment that we believe in Him we are declared to be righteous, and genuinely treated as such by God.

Justification is not a process, but an event. This text does not refer to justification as a process. It refers to the event in the future at which God would declare those who faithfully obey all of the Law as righteous - if justification depended upon works instead of faith. The judgment referred to in this chapter is the Great White Throne judgment, which no believer will encounter. None who stand before Him then will be justified.

FA

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish)

I think a theme in Romans that deserves special mention is boasting of one's relationship to God. Many people seize on passages in Romans which speak of Jews boasting and use them to argue that this describes a Jewish self-righteousness and an attempt to earn one's place before God by one's own efforts, claiming that the Jews were boasting in their own righteous deeds. As I will show, this is a first-class misrepresentation of the text.

While the idea of boasting normally connotes arrogance in English, this is not always the case in Paul's thought. (1Co 9:15, 15:31, 2Co 2:12, 14, 7:4, 14, 8:24, 9:2-4, 10:8, 13-16, 11:10, 2Th 1:4; cf. 2Co 10:16-17, Ro 15:17, 1Co 1:31, 3:21, 2Co 5:12.) This raises the possibility that the Jew may not be here boasting in his own-self accomplishment—indeed, he is boasting "in God" or in his relationship with God, which in the Jewish mind is a relationship of grace. Thus the Jew may be "glorying in the Lord" (Jr 9:24), but his boasting is misplaced since he believes his relationship with the Lord is from Torah. The Jew may indeed be arrogant over the Gentile in believing that he has a grace-filled relationship with God through Torah, but it is not a boast of self-accomplishment, but a boast "in God," based on one's relationship with God (through Torah), as many contemporary commentators have noted (e.g., Sanders, Dunn, Zeisler).

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish)

I think because of the difficulty some modern readers may have in understanding the difference between arrogantly boasting in self-accomplishment and arrogantly boasting in one's relationship to God, an analogy may be helpful. Imagine two little boys bickering with each other. In the process of the conflict, one little boy adopts a superior attitude and says, "Well, my dad is better than your dad." In this case, the child is arrogantly boasting of his relationship with his dad, even though he is not boasting of his self-accomplishment. He is not citing anyot; In this case, the child is boasting of his relationship with the parent—which he perceives as being brought about by his natural descent—in contrast to the imagined non-presence of the relationship between the parent and the adopted child. The argument is that because the one child lacks a certain quality (being a natural child), he must therefore lack the favored relationship that the first child has.

In this manner, a Jew might boast over a Gentile. The Jew might argue that he is a child of God—that he has a favored relationship with Yahweh—because he has a particular quality (being a son of Abraham, Ro 4:11-12, 9:7, Mt 3:9, or being under Torah, Ro 2:17)—while those who lack this quality must ipso facto not be the children of God. It is in this sense that the Jew is boasting in God in Romans, as is confirmed by the passages in the early chapters of Romans which speak of boasting.

In 2:17 the object of the Jew's boasting was God, not his own self-accomplishment. Paul says: "But . . . you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the law and make your boast in God." Here the object of the Jew's boast is obviously God—Yahweh—not in his own self-righteous works. He is boasting to the Gentile saying, "My God is greater than your god," not boasting in front of the Lord saying, "Look how righteous I am, God."

Similarly, in 2:23 we see that the object of the Jew's boasting is "the Torah." Paul says, "You who boast in the Torah, do you dishonor God by breaking the Torah? For, as it is written, 'The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you'" (Rom 2:23f).

Here the object of boasting is not the Jew's self-righteous accomplishment of the Torah's requirements, but the Torah itself. The Torah is an object of boasting in front of Gentiles because it is what the Jew perceives to be the thing that unites him to God. The Gentiles do not have Torah, hence they are not united to God. The Jew thus reasons in front of his Gentile neighbor, "How glorious is Torah! It is the thing which makes my privileged relationship to God possible!"

The fact that the Jew is not boasting in his own moral accomplishments is evident from the fact that Paul immediately after acknowledging the Jew's boast in the Torah, he pricks the Jew's conscience by pointing out that the Jew has broken the Torah. He says in effect: "Okay, so you boast about the Torah in front of Gentiles, do you? Well, do you dishonor God by breaking the Torah in front of Gentiles?"

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish)

In 3:27 we encounter another example of Jewish boasting in a privileged relationship with God. Paul says, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? [On the principle] of works? No, but on the principle of faith. For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah."

Just prior to this Paul stated that Jews are also under the power of sin and that the Gentiles can be justified by faith in Jesus Christ (3:19-26). So how must Jewish boasting over Gentiles be evaluated? It is excluded. The principle of faith excludes boasting because according to the principle of faith anyone who has faith in Jesus is set right with God. That being the case, Jewish boasting in having a particular relationship with God through Torah is excluded.

Notice that Paul says the principle of works does not exclude boasting. This has implications for the kind of boasting that is in view. If the boasting was in one's own righteousness, then Paul would have said that Torah does exclude such boasting, "[f]or even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the Torah" (Gal 6:13a) and "Jews . . . are under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9). If it was boasting in one's own moral purity then Paul would say that the principle of works excludes boasting. But since he explicitly states that it does not exclude the boasting he is talking about, it must not be boasting in self-accomplishment that he has in mind. Instead, it is boasting "in God" and in the Jew's privileged relationship with him.

 

[stan the man]

Boasting (Jewish)

The reference to boasting in Rom 4:2 confirms that this kind of boasting is under discussion. There Paul says, What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith without works. He does this by offering a common ground principle with which he expects his Jewish audience to agree: f Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about (4:2a). This common ground principle would hold true regardless of how works are interpreted in it. If works are acts of self-accomplishment then a person who has been justified by works would obviously have grounds on which to boast. "Look what I have done!" such a person would have a right to cry. "See, I have justified myself before God!" Similarly, if works are, as I will maintain, the ceremonial acts prescribed by the Torah then a person justified by those would also have grounds to boast. He could say to a Gentile: "See: I am right with God, while you are not. I have obtained his favor by performing the ceremonies he prescribes."

But Paul does not stop at this point. His next comment tells us what kind of works and what kind of boasting is being talked about, for Paul says that a person justified by works would have grounds to boast but not before God (4:2b). If the works and boasting Paul was talking about were of moral self-accomplishment then this last statement would make no sense. A person justified by works of moral self-accomplishment would have grounds to boast in front of God. He could look to God and say, "See, Lord, all of the wonderful things I have done which have earned me my place before you."

Therefore Paul must not be talking about that kind of boasting or works. That kind would render unintelligible his statement about not being able to boast before God if one was justified by works. But the alternative reading makes perfect sense. If Abraham was justified by (ceremonial) works of Torah then Abraham could boast in this fact before Gentiles ("Abraham . . . [would have] something to boast about," 4a), yet this would give him no grounds for boasting before God ("but not before God," 4b).

This not only makes the argument intelligible, but perfectly suits it for the kind of common ground argument Paul is attempting. Any Jew thinking hearing Paul's argument could be expected to say at this point, "Oh, yeah. That's obvious, isn't it. The fact Abraham would have had grounds to boast in front of Gentiles does not mean he had grounds to boast in front of God."

A Jew would know that he (like any person) must adopt an attitude of humility, not boasting, before God. As the prophet says, "the Lord requires you . . . to walk humbly with your God" (Mic 6:8). This would strike every Jew as so obvious that it is axiomatic. Yet in their zeal to boast before Gentiles, it was a truth of which they had lost sight. Paul is thus calling them back to the true emphasis of their ancestral faith—humility before God, not prideful boasting before Gentiles. Paul's point in turning in 4:3 to Genesis 15:6 is to make precisely this point. Abraham was justified in that passage by humbly trusting God, meaning an attitude of humble trust is what justifies, not performance of works of Torah.

This suffices for an analysis of Paul's remarks on Jewish boasting. (I shall go over the Christian boasting in Romans at a later time.)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Justification is not a process, but an event. This text does not refer to justification as a process. It refers to the event in the future at which God would declare those who faithfully obey all of the Law as righteous - if justification depended upon works instead of faith. The judgment referred to in this chapter is the Great White Throne judgment, which no believer will encounter. None who stand before Him then will be justified.

HP: Who said no believer would encounter the Great White throne judgment? Who said that none that stand before Him then will be justified?