Justification: On What Grounds?

[russell55]

Without the resurrection it means that God did not justify Jesus' life for it is God who justifies. No one has suggested that Jesus needed to merit anything else. It is God's stamp of approval on His life and death.

Okay, I'm thinking that this may not be a disagreement at all, but just a misunderstanding of the terms. The word grounds as I'm using it here means the actions by which our justification is merited or earned.

I agree with you that the resurrection is God's stamp of approval (or vindication) of Christ's life and death, and that if Christ hadn't risen, we wouldn't be justified. I just don't think it serves the role of grounds of our justification, and I suspect you don't either, because by your own comments, you've placed the resurrection in the role of the Father's stamp of approval rather than the role of Christ's meritorious work.

 

[russell55]

Please clarify, I don't understand what you are asking.

Grounds usually refers to the actions or works that merit (or earn) something. I agree with you that if Christ had not been raised, neither would we. I think the resurrection proves that Christ is God; I believe that it proves that he defeated death. It's proof of Christ's merit, but not a meritorious act in itself.

 

[TCGreek]

Sorry TCGreek but according to Paul you can't have one without the other.
1 Corinthians 15:13-17
13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

1. Before Paul wrote Chapter 15, he wrote Chps 1 and 2, where he "preached Christ crucified a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1:23).

And he continues "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ crucified" (2:2).

2. Did he preach the resurrection of Christ? Of course, he!

3. But he only mentioned the death of Christ, which of course, would include Christ resurrection.

 

[Palatka51]

Or is it God's action by which he indicates that Christ's meritorious work is accepted?

1 Kings 8:32
32Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness.
Jesus was God's righteous servant.
Isaiah 53:10-12
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Yet Paul (as previously noted in 1Cor 15:19) says that this would have been in vain had He not raised from the dead.

 

[russell55]

Yet Paul (as previously noted in 1Cor 15:19) says that this would have been in vain had He not raised from the dead.

Our faith would have been in vain if Christ had not been raised because if Christ had remained dead it would have meant that his death had not been sufficient to pay for all the sins he was bearing. If Christ had not been raised, it would have meant that the death that resulted as just payment for our sin was still holding him.

 

[Palatka51]

Our faith would have been in vain if Christ had not been raised because if Christ had remained dead it would have meant that his death had not been sufficient to pay for all the sins he was bearing. If Christ had not been raised, it would have meant that the death that resulted as just payment for our sin was still holding him.

Precisely, You can not have justification without the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The first choice of this poll does not go far enough to establish justification nor the grounds for it.

 

[russell55]

Precisely, You can not have justification without the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Yes.

The first choice of this poll does not go far enough to establish justification nor the grounds for it.

But the poll is asking about a very narrow category. It isn't asking about everything that had to happen for us to be justified, but rather, about what things earn our justification.

If the poll question had asked about everything necessary for us to be justified, then you'd have a point, but then you'd need to add other things, too. For instance, we have to believe to be justified, but that doesn't mean our faith earns our justification. Rather, faith is necessary as the instrument through which we receive justification. Christ had to be incarnated, but the incarnation doesn't earn our justification. Rather, the incarnation was necessary because in order to represent us and earn our justification, Christ had to be one of us.

So too, I think, with the resurrection. It is necessary because it's the sure result of God's acceptance of the complete payment for our sins. I don't think you'll find the resurrection listed anywhere as something that earns (or becomes the "on account of") for our justification.

You are welcome, of course, to believe that the resurrection serves as something that earns or merits or provides the "on account of" for our justification, but I don't think you've proved it from scripture. You've proved the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but that isn't enough to prove that it's role in our justification is that of grounds for it.

If I'd added the resurrection as grounds for our justification in #1 of the poll, it wouldn't have represented any of the common views of the grounds for our justification, and that's what I was trying to do. I spent some more time this afternoon searching for any formulation (statement of faith, confession, systematic theology, etc.) that gives the resurrection as one of the grounds for justification and I couldn't find any. That, of course, in itself, doesn't mean that your view is wrong, but it does probably indicate that it rightly falls under the other category.

 

[Palatka51]

You are welcome, of course, to believe that the resurrection serves as something that earns or merits or provides the "on account of" for our justification, but I don't think you've proved it from scripture. You've proved the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but that isn't enough to prove that it's role in our justification is that of grounds for it.

Then you give me scripture for justification without Christ's resurrection.

If I'd added the resurrection as grounds for our justification in #1 of the poll, it wouldn't have represented any of the common views of the grounds for our justification, and that's what I was trying to do.

This verse renders your argument moot.
1 Corinthians 15:17
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
If you are yet in your sins you are not justified.

I spent some more time this afternoon searching for any formulation (statement of faith, confession, systematic theology, etc.) that gives the resurrection as one of the grounds for justification and I couldn't find any. That, of course, in itself, doesn't mean that your view is wrong, but it does probably indicate that it rightly falls under the other category.

Scripture please.?

 

[Palatka51]

What do you believe is the grounds for God's declaration that those who believe are righteous? What scripture would you use to support what you believe?

You asked for scripture and I've showed you where by I believe as I do. Now show me yours.

(If you have a view other than one of these three, I hope you will explain it and defend it.)

I have explained it and have defended it. Your Attacks have only solidified the wall of scriptural defense that I have built.

[*]We are declared righteous based on two things: Christ's death for our sins, which provides the grounds for the pardon of our sins; and Christ's perfectly righteous life, which provides a positively righteous record that is imputed to believers.

His blood covers a sinful life. I have no righteous record and to say otherwise would make me a lier.

[*]We are declared righteous based on two things: the forgiveness that comes through Christ's death for our sins; and our actual personal righteousness, which is graciously worked by the Spirit in those who are believers in Christ.

Graciously worked out by God who raised Jesus from the dead. Thus justifying His shed blood for the washing of our sin. Our actual personal righteousness is as filthy rags before God. Our filthiness is cleansed in His blood. His Spirit brings "draws" us to Christ and Christ presents us to God. God will not accept us if God had not rose Him from the grave to be at His right hand, the position of presentation or introduction.

[*]We are declared righteous based on two things: the forgiveness that comes through Christ's death for our sins; and our own faith, which is accepted by God instead of works as the basis for declaring us righteous.[/LIST]What say ye?

Faith in what?
That He is still in the grave or that He is risen?
It has got to be faith that He is risen. This is where our faith is placed or it is in vain. Again, my scripture that you have asked for.
1 Corinthians 15:17
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Does that sound like justification?

 

[Palatka51]

1. Before Paul wrote Chapter 15, he wrote Chps 1 and 2, where he "preached Christ crucified a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1:23).

And he continues "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ crucified" (2:2).

2. Did he preach the resurrection of Christ? Of course, he!

3. But he only mentioned the death of Christ, which of course, would include Christ resurrection.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

First of all the context of Chapter 1 is that the Corinthians were divided in their faith regarding of whom they were baptized. Justification is not relevant to these verses' subject, division is.


1 Corinthians 1:23-25
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

When Jesus was crucified He became a stumbling block to the Jews. He was to be their King. How could He (our (Jews) King) allow Himself to fall into the hands of the Romans? Hence forth the Jews stumble even unto today.
Unto the Greeks the preaching of the death burial and resurrection of Christ was foolishness because of His resurrection. They could not accept the idea of the resurrection, they had no teaching of any resurrection.

Acts 17:18-21,29-32
18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
Though the resurrection is not mentioned in 1:23 it is indeed implied as I have clearly shown that is exactly what caused the Greeks to react to Paul's Mars Hill sermon with mocking.

 

[Palatka51]

If you did not choose option one, something is seriously wrong with your theology of Justification---it is twisted!

Romans 4:24,25
24 ............. if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Twisted? Come on TCG you've got to include the resurrection of Christ as grounds for justification or you deny sound Biblical teaching.

 

[TCGreek]

1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

First of all the context of Chapter 1 is that the Corinthians were divided in their faith regarding of whom they were baptized. Justification is not relevant to these verses' subject, division is.


1 Corinthians 1:23-25
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

When Jesus was crucified He became a stumbling block to the Jews. He was to be their King. How could He (our (Jews) King) allow Himself to fall into the hands of the Romans? Hence forth the Jews stumble even unto today.
Unto the Greeks the preaching of the death burial and resurrection of Christ was foolishness because of His resurrection. They could not accept the idea of the resurrection, they had no teaching of any resurrection.

Acts 17:18-21,29-32
18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.
19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.)

29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
32And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.
Though the resurrection is not mentioned in 1:23 it is indeed implied as I have clearly shown that is exactly what caused the Greeks to react to Paul's Mars Hill sermon with mocking.

How can you say that the context of 1 Cor doesn't involve Justification? Let me direct your attention to 1 Cor 1:30, where Paul says that Christ became for us Our Righteousness, dikaiosune, same word translated Justification.

 

[TCGreek]

Romans 4:24,25
24 ............. if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Twisted? Come on TCG you've got to include the resurrection of Christ as grounds for justification or you deny sound Biblical teaching.

1. Of course, I must include the Resurrection of Jesus, but I was only emphasizing what Paul emphasized when he spoke of Justification elsewhere: "God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the Righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21).

2. "Righteousness of God is dikaiosune theou, or Justification of God.

3. But consider this: It was through His death that Christ became our Propitiation, satisfying the wrath of God and removing our guilt of sin. Paul says that by Christ shedding His blood, God demonstrated His Righteousness, dikaiosune, Justice (Rom 3:24-26).

 

[russell55]

Then you give me scripture for justification without Christ's resurrection.

I didn't say there was justification without the resurrection. In fact, in the very quote you wrote this in response to, I said exactly the opposite. For several reasons, I get the feeling you are not really reading my posts.

This verse renders your argument moot.
1 Corinthians 15:17
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
If you are yet in your sins you are not justified.

I agree that if Christ was not raised we would not be justified, as I've said again and again.

The question is this: Is it true that without the resurrection we would still be in our sins because the resurrection earns our justification or because it proves our justification?

You say the resurrection earns our justification, and I say it proves it.

But we both agree that without the resurrection, we would not be justifiecd.

Scripture please.?

Huh? All I said was that I didn't include the resurrection in option 1 for a reason. That option represents one of the common views of the grounds of justification, and I could find no one who holds that view who included the resurrection as grounds. That isn't something I can find in scripture. It can only be found by reading the writings of people and groups who hold that view to see what they say they believe.

 

[russell55]

You asked for scripture and I've showed you where by I believe as I do. Now show me yours.

You've shown me that the resurrection is necessary for justification, but you've not shown that it is his resurrection that earns our justification.

His blood covers a sinful life.

Yes.

I have no righteous record and to say otherwise would make me a lier.

We don't provide a righteous record for ourselves, I agree. But we do have a righteous record, Christ's own righteous record counted as ours.

As Paul says in Philippians 3, we don't have a righteousness of our own "that comes from the law." In other words, we don't provide our own righteous record by keeping God's law, because we are all law breakers.

What we do have is the righteousness "which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God." We have an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is not our own, but which comes from God.

That righteousness is Christ's righteousness counted as ours because we are in Christ. We are "in Christ Jesus, who became to us ... righteousness..." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Graciously worked out by God who raised Jesus from the dead.

Yes

Thus justifying His shed blood for the washing of our sin.

Ahh! Yes, but you are using the word justify here differently than the way we use it when we speak of our justification. When you say his resurrection justifies his shed blood, you are saying his resurrection vindicates or proves the sufficiency of his death for the forgiveness of sin.

When we speak about our own justification, we are using the word to mean the declaration by God that we are righteous. God declares us righteous (or justifies us) based on our identification with Christ's righteousness.

When Our actual personal righteousness is as filthy rags before God.

Yes, but is not on the grounds of our own personal righteousness that we are declared righteous.

Our filthiness is cleansed in His blood.

Yes. But what provides the record of perfect lawkeeping for us? It is the "doers of the law who will be justified. " How do we become a "doer of the law"?

His Spirit brings "draws" us to Christ and Christ presents us to God.

And God sees us a clothed in Christ's righteousness. That's why he can declare us righteous or justify us. We become the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) or Christ becomes our righteousness (2 Corinthians 1:30).

God will not accept us if God had not rose Him from the grave to be at His right hand, the position of presentation or introduction.

Yes, because the resurrection proves that his death was sufficient. See above. Death is the result of sin, and once our sins were paid for, death could not hold him, because he had no sins of his own.

Faith in what?
That He is still in the grave or that He is risen?
It has got to be faith that He is risen. This is where our faith is placed or it is in vain. Again, my scripture that you have asked for.
1 Corinthians 15:17
17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Does that sound like justification?

Faith in the work of the risen Christ, whose resurrection proves the sufficiency of his work. Christ is raised "because of our justification. (Romans 4). It is because we are justified that Christ is raised. It is because his obedient life and death are sufficient to justify us that death could not hold him.

 

[Allan]

I agree that some information is left out to be able to give a proper evaluation for the poll.

I have one question though.
Our justification is in, by, and through Christ's death and resurrection thus the very grounds FOR justification.
But I disagree (with some BB'ers, but not the poll) that ANY person who 'will be' saved is justified already, as in BEFORE they believe. [Also that the propitiation of Christ is applied before faith, which is something in tandom with justification].

Scripture states that it is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)

Christ death did not automatically make anyone justified, otherwise we would be born justified. But scripture states the application of His Justifying work is done through 'faith'.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 3:26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rom 3:27 ¶ Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Rom 3:30 Seeing [it is] one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

So I think 'faith' is an aspect not to be over looked, is all.

EDITTED IN --->> I did not choose your #3 with regard to faith because it states Christs death AND our faith are accepted in place... which does not hold not biblical truth. Our faith is never something to be placed along side Christ as though it is something of equal value. Faith is acting in accordance with revealed truth (the verb form that is) and not truth itself. I choose #1 but specify there needs to be much clarification in it.

 

[TCGreek]

I agree that some information is left out to be able to give a proper evaluation for the poll.

I have one question though.
Our justification is in, by, and through Christ's death and resurrection thus the very grounds FOR justification.
But I disagree that ANY person who 'will be' saved is justified BEFORE they believe.
Scripture states that it is 'by faith' we are justified (Rom 3:28)
It is 'by faith' we are made righteous (Rom 3:22, Rom 4:5)
It is 'by faith' the propitiation (substituationary death) is applied to man (Rom 3:25)

Christ death did not automatically make anyone justified, otherwise we would be born justified. But scripture states the application of His Justifying work is done through 'faith'.

So I think 'faith' is an aspect not to be over looked, is all.

EDITTED IN --->> I did not choose your #3 with regard to faith because it states Christs death AND our faith are accepted in place... which does not hold not biblical truth. Our faith is never something to be placed along side Christ as though it is something of equal value. Faith is acting in accordance with revealed truth (the verb form that is) and not truth itself. I choose #1 but specify there needs to be much clarification in it.

Who ever said that Justification precedes faith?

 

[Allan]

Who ever said that Justification precedes faith?

It was not a specifc statement toward anyone here in this thread nor the thread itself but was clarifying a view in contrast toward other discussions I have had of late on teh BB. However (and one of the reasons for it) is that I I have spoken with poeple on the BB (recently) who DO believe that Jesus death and resurrection justifed at that moment all believers past and future and that our faith merely acknowledges we are already justified.

I went back and modified my statement to clear my meaning.

 

[TCGreek]

It was not a specifc statement toward anyone here in this thread nor the thread itself but was clarifying a view in contrast toward other discussions I have had of late on teh BB. However (and one of the reasons for it) is that I I have spoken with poeple on the BB (recently) who DO believe that Jesus death and resurrection justifed at that moment all believers past and future and that our faith merely acknowledges we are already justified.

I went back and modified my statement to clear my meaning.

Thanks for the clarification, Allan. :thumbs:

 

[russell55]

I agree that some information is left out to be able to give a proper evaluation for the poll.

The poll answers have to be short. I tried to explain them, but apparently not well enough. Basically, there are three views on the grounds of justification:

• It is Christ's blood and righteousness. (You've heard the songs that espouse this view: "Jesus, thy blood and righteousness, my beauty are, my glorious dress..." or "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.") This is the one that has Christ's righteousness imputed to us. People who are in this category see faith as the instrumental means of justification. Faith itself (in this view) is not meritorious (and so not considered grounds) because it is receptive only. It trusts in the work of Christ, both his perfect law keeping life and his sin bearing death.
• It is Christ's blood and our faith. People who are in this category don't believe in imputed righteousness, and they sometimes describe faith as "evangelical obedience". Faith, in this view, is productive rather than simply receptive, and serves as grounds for our justification. In this view, God gave the law, but no one could keep it, so he accepts faith instead of lawkeeping. There is no need to have Christ's righteousness imputed to us, because our faith is our righteousness. (Robert Gundry would be someone today who holds this view.)
• It is Christ's blood and our good works, albeit good works graciously worked by God. This would be sort of a more Roman Catholic view, although some (so-called) protestants say something close to this.

I have one question though.
Our justification is in, by, and through Christ's death and resurrection thus the very grounds FOR justification.
But I disagree (with some BB'ers, but not the poll) that ANY person who 'will be' saved is justified already, as in BEFORE they believe. [Also that the propitiation of Christ is applied before faith, which is something in tandom with justification].

Yes, there have been some on the BB who believe in what's called eternal justification. Primitive Baptists, mostly, I think. They would probably be in category #1 when it comes to grounds of justification, but they don't seem to see faith playing any role in our justification, not even as the instrumental means. It's a relatively rare view, but there are people here who believe it.

EDITTED IN --->> I did not choose your #3 with regard to faith because it states Christs death AND our faith are accepted in place... which does not hold not biblical truth. Our faith is never something to be placed along side Christ as though it is something of equal value. Faith is acting in accordance with revealed truth (the verb form that is) and not truth itself. I choose #1 but specify there needs to be much clarification in it.

I agree completely with you about the problem with #3. And you explained it well.

As to #1, I guess I assumed to much. I hope what I wrote above clarifies it. I didn't mention faith in #1 because in that view it fills the role of the instrumental means of our justification and not the grounds of it. I was asking only about grounds in the question--the things that earn our justification for us or the things of value exchanged for it.