Justification

[JonC]

Thanks for trying to clarify your view. When God puts us positionally into Christ, we undergo the Circumcision of Christ where our sin burden (whatever our God had or would have held against us) is continually removed. Thus we are "justified in Christ" if that was what you were saying. We are made perfect, not declared perfect. And to be perfect is to be faultless and thus righteous.

No flesh is justified by the Law. But we are justified through faith. All this means is if God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us positionally into Christ where we undergo the washing of regeneration and are thus justified "through faith."

Actually, I am saying there is a sense of both. I do not think that we can take apart salvation into mini-standalone doctrines (although some try). We can examine God's work of grace (this "transformation" or "re-creation") many ways. It is a reconciliation as we are reconciled through Christ to God. It is redemption as we are purchased with the precious blood of Christ. It is sanctification as we are to be a people holy to God. It is regeneration as we are re-created beings. It is justification as we are justified, in Christ, through faith. We are both made and declared righteous just as we are both made and commanded to be holy (1 Pet. 1).

I don't know that this righteous is to "perfect" (depending on if you are speaking of moral perfection), but instead I think it is a covenantal righteousness (perfect, to include moral perfection, is inherent and assumed of God; but here I think we are looking at what makes us "right" in terms of God's covenant with Abraham...and that is by faith). I agree that this does not have the Law in sight.

 

[Van]

Hi Biblicist, I disagree with much of what you have asserted.
1) Being justified is a spiritual condition. If we are positionally in Christ we are being continually justified.
No matter what we do, it is just as though we did not sin, because of the "once for all" affect of the blood.

2) Justification is not a progressive action but a continuing action, once justified, always justified.

3) Progressive sanctification is where we earn rewards as we serve Christ and strive to become more Christ-like, occurs while we are completely and totally justified. Nothing we do results in loss of our justification. We remain in Christ forever.

4) No need to deny God credits our faith as righteousness, just read Romans 4:4-5/24.

5) Yes spiritual justification, being made righteous, occurs during our rebirth our regeneration, when we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. This is the washing of regeneration.

6) I am using "in Christ" as meaning God has spiritually put us into Christ, a positional change of location from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son. Yes, "in Christ" is used in more than one way, but usually in this way.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Biblicist, I disagree with much of what you have asserted.

Trying to exchange ideas in writing is cumbersome and usually takes much longer than if sitting down face to face where you can speak to one another. I could take each point below and refute it. However, I am going to approach it differently. I believe that Romans 3:24-5:2 if considered in its contextual development fully repudiates your whole position. For example;

1. Notice how this segment begins and concludes - Rom. 3:24-26; Romans 4:22-5:3 by defining the use of "faith" as "in" the Person and redemptive work of Christ. This is how it should be defined in the middle between the beginning and ending of this segment as in Rom. 4:4-5. If you understood or accepted this you would never claim that is merely "faith" being accredited for righteousness, when it is righteousness provided in the life of Christ that is being imputed to the "ungodly" by means of faith which is in this gospel (good news).

2. Moreover, Abraham is explicitly given to illustrate this understanding of justificaiton by faith in Christ and his redemptive work FOR ALL WHO ARE OF THIS KIND OF FAITH (Rom. 3:27 with 4:1-21). This is clearly stated in Romans 4:11-12, 16, 21; Gal. 3:6-7. There is no difference between Job, Abraham who are all PRE-Old Covenant saints and YOU and ME as they looked forward by faith in Christ and we look backward by faith in Christ in the same gospel, same way of salvation, same savior, etc. (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; etc.).

3. The contents of justification which are received through faith are described in Romans 4:4-8 and summarized as "the blessing" in Romans 4:9-11.

4. This "blessing" was not something that was progressive and linear from the point of faith in Christ until the death of Abraham. It was a punctilar completed action PRIOR TO "circumcision" and was not something occurring "in circumcision" as Paul explicitly denies such a thing in Romans 4:9-11 and Romans 5:1-2 where aorist tense verbs and perfect tense verbs are used to describe its reception which Paul NEVER describes in present tense verbs. However, you whole position requires present tense linear action verbs but the Paul provides none and by aorist and perfect tense repudiates your position wholly and thoroughly.

5. Regeneration is not justification. There is not a single scripture where justification is said to be regeneration. Justification is NEVER once described as spiritual union.

6.Your position is a very serious error. Indeed, it is the entire basis for what Paul calls "another gospel" which is merely inclusion of progressive sanctification with justifcation. Your theory of justification is precisely what the Bible teaches is progressive sanctification. Progressive sanctification ORIGINATES from spiritual union with Christ or with regeneration.

7. You simply deny my evidence but NEVER once deal with the contextual and grammatical evidence I present, and do present in this very post (#1-4). You never supply any specific evidence for your theory but merely assert it.

8. If we did an HONEST contextual developmental interpretation of Romans 3:24-5:2 it would expose your theory as error.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In leaving this thread, and in the light of recent posts, I feel the need to re-state something I wrote earlier:

One thing I must add. the great doctrines of our faith are inter-dependent. Deny one and you will find yourself denying another and another and another. Once you deny Penal Substitution, Justification by faith alone and the Active Obedience of Christ are called into question, and pretty soon you are struggling with the whole of soteriology and hamartiology and the whole edifice of your faith will come crashing down around you.

 

[JonC]

In leaving this thread, and in the light of recent posts, I feel the need to re-state something I wrote earlier:

One thing I must add. the great doctrines of our faith are inter-dependent. Deny one and you will find yourself denying another and another and another. Once you deny Penal Substitution, Justification by faith alone and the Active Obedience of Christ are called into question, and pretty soon you are struggling with the whole of soteriology and hamartiology and the whole edifice of your faith will come crashing down around you.

I do not see anyone denying substitution here, but I do have to call into question your remark.

The Penal Substitution theory of Atonement has not, historically, always been the most common view. Just because it is mine doesn't mean it defines our faith. I think, for example, of the Anabaptists who hold to another theory of Atonement entirely. Yet their theology predates the Reformation and still exist today (their theology has, along with Reformed Theology, stood the test of time despite rejecting penal substitution). Of this group, we will find many faithful brethern who's faith did not crumble around them but sustained them even unto death.

I think your comment may be overstatement. I absolutely agree that our doctrines are interdependent. But sometimes they are interdependent within our understanding (for example, a hyper- PST that requires Christ experience "our punishment" as an exact in-kind event demands an extra-biblical doctrine of the Cross), and sometimes they are even held inconsistently within our theologies (for example, divine sovereignty and free-will both held within Arminianism).

And, I have to admit that when I see all of those hero's of past who did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory stand firm for the gospel of Jesus Christ with unwavering faith even through persecution and death...well, I think that the hallmark of their faith may be something or Someone other than Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thanks for trying to clarify your view. When God puts us positionally into Christ, we undergo the Circumcision of Christ where our sin burden (whatever our God had or would have held against us) is continually removed.

There is no chronological order but there is a chronological order and it is first spiritual cirumcision = regeneration = created in Christ = spiritual union with God , which is then logically followed by justification or our legal position in Christ which is aorist tense completed action rather than a linear progressive action.

No flesh is justified by the Law. But we are justified through faith. All this means is if God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, then He puts us positionally into Christ where we undergo the washing of regeneration and are thus justified "through faith."

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not see anyone denying substitution here, but I do have to call into question your remark.

The Penal Substitution theory of Atonement has not, historically, always been the most common view. Just because it is mine doesn't mean it defines our faith. I think, for example, of the Anabaptists who hold to another theory of Atonement entirely. Yet their theology predates the Reformation and still exist today (their theology has, along with Reformed Theology, stood the test of time despite rejecting penal substitution). Of this group, we will find many faithful brethern who's faith did not crumble around them but sustained them even unto death.

I think your comment may be overstatement. I absolutely agree that our doctrines are interdependent. But sometimes they are interdependent within our understanding (for example, a hyper- PST that requires Christ experience "our punishment" as an exact in-kind event demands an extra-biblical doctrine of the Cross), and sometimes they are even held inconsistently within our theologies (for example, divine sovereignty and free-will both held within Arminianism).

And, I have to admit that when I see all of those hero's of past who did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory stand firm for the gospel of Jesus Christ with unwavering faith even through persecution and death...well, I think that the hallmark of their faith may be something or Someone other than Penal Substitution Theory.

I agree with Martin on this. Repudiation of penal substitutionary atonement, if one is consistent in that repudiation, will lead them to absolute apostasy. However, not all who reject penal substitutionary atonement are consistent in their repudiation of it. One error always leads to another error if one is consistent with the error they have embraced.

One can be genuinely saved but mentally/doctrinally led astray. However, the salvation of the deceived does not justify their errors just because that error is continued among the saved.

 

[The Biblicist]

8 Keys to Properly Interpreting Romans 3:24-5:2

Key #1: Remember the preceding context has but one stated aim and that is to prove that no fallen human being is righteous before God and is without the righteousness of God – Rom. 3:9-23. Hence, righteousness must come from some other source than fallen man.

Key #2: The use of “faith” in Romans 3:24-5:2 is defined at the beginning (Rom. 3:24-26) and then again at the end (Rom. 4:22-5:2) to be “faith” that is “in” the Person and redemptive work of Christ as the provision for righteousness needed to be justified before God. So when Paul says that Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness, he means “faith” that is in the promise of righteousness provided in the Person and work of Christ. Hence, is the righteousness provided by Christ that faith embraces and is imputed to the “ungodly” believer (Rom. 4:5).

Key #3: The term “works” is defined in this context to be everything that originates in and through the body of man to satisfy God’s moral standard. For example, Abraham in his fallen state is set forth in Romans 4:1-2 as one whose “works” could not justify him before God. This could not be the works of the Law as he lived 430 years prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law. This could not be the works of sanctification because he is being considered in an unjustified state before God. This could not be obtaining, maintaining or sustaining an ethnic cultural Jewishness because no such standard existed at the time of Abraham. His “works” refers to all those things that originate from the heart beginning with thoughts, then words followed by actions (Mt. 15:17).

Key #4: Paul provides a progressive rebuttal of all forms of works in and through men as inclusive in justification by faith. (1) No works understood as responses of the heart in thoughts, words and actions (Rom. 4:1-5). (2) No works understood as obedience to divine ordinances (Rom. 4:9-12). No works understood as obedience to the Law of Moses (Rom. 4:13-15). No works defined as sanctified faithfulness (Rom. 4:16-21) as the faith that justifies is not defined as something that works cooperatively with God or assists God in obtaining justification, as both Sarah and Abraham were “dead” with regard to ability to assist or cooperate. Justifying faith is defined by verse 21 void of personal assistance or cooperative works. God’s work of justification cannot include sanctified human assistance or cooperative efforts any more than it could assist God in raising the dead or calling into existence things that do not exist (Rom. 4:17).

Key #5: The word “ungodly” in Romans 4:5 describes the person previously characterized in Romans 3:9-23 who are without any kind of righteousness in or through their own person and thus “ungodly.” It is this “ungodly” person who “worketh not” (present tense progressive action) and is “without works” whose faith in Christ’s provision of righteousness by promise of faith is being “reckoned” or “counted” as righteous. Hence, this proves that the term “justified” must mean “declared to be righteous” and the righteousness “counted” or “reckoned” must be ALIEN or FOREIGN righteousness (Christ’s own righteousness) that is not produced in or through them or else they would not be called “ungodly.” It must be a POSITIONAL righteousness rather than ACTUAL righteousness or else they would not be regarded as “ungodly” in their own person.

Key #6: Justification is not progressive or linear in action. It is a completed action at a certain point in time that remains a completed action. This is proven by providing Abraham as the illustration for all who are of faith. He was justified (aorist tense – v. 11) while he was “in uncircumcision” and that act of justification did not occur “in circumcision” (v. 10). Most of his life for God was “in circumcision” and yet justification did not occur “in circumcision.” Paul uses Aorist and Perfect tenses to describe the act of justification (Rom. 4:11; 5:1-2).

Key #7: Justification is not regeneration. Regeneration is spiritual union with God by being “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:5,10). We are “justified by faith” not by regeneration. We are righteous by imputation not by impartation through regeneration. Justification is a legal term that declares the “ungodly” believer as righteous rather than making them righteous by spiritual union. The term “justified” in Romans 3:24-5:2 is used in connection with the term “law” proving it is a legal term and never used in connection with the terms “born” or “regenerated” in Romans 3:24-5:2. Those who attempt to identify justification as being brought into spiritual union with God through new birth are attempting to define the word “justified” to mean MADE RIGHTEOUS through spiritual union (thus justified = godly) rather than the “ungodly” declared righteous by faith. This is a very serious error as regeneration is the origin of progressive sanctification by which we are being made righteous by the Holy Spirit working in and through our body = "good works" (rather than justified "without works"). When regeneration is confused with justification, that is the root error for demanding justification is a progressive action inclusive of progressive sanctification which is condemned by Paul as “another gospel.” Whereas, the truth of the gospel is that the righteousness generated in and through the body of Christ alone is what justifies the “ungodly” before God.

Key #8: Justification does not promote sin (Rom. 6:1) nor does it occur in a vacuum but it occurs simultaneous with regeneration though distinct from regeneration. Hence, the “ungodly” who is justified by faith is also at the same time regenerated by the Spirit which gives him an inclination for righteousness (Rom. 7:15-18) although the power to perform righteousness is by faith in the power of the indwelling Spirit of God. We are justified “without works” but we are not justified without regeneration wherein we are inclined to righteousness by being brought into spiritual union with God and created in Christ Jesus “unto” good works.

 

[Van]

Actually, I am saying there is a sense of both. I do not think that we can take apart salvation into mini-standalone doctrines (although some try). We can examine God's work of grace (this "transformation" or "re-creation") many ways. It is a reconciliation as we are reconciled through Christ to God. It is redemption as we are purchased with the precious blood of Christ. It is sanctification as we are to be a people holy to God. It is regeneration as we are re-created beings. It is justification as we are justified, in Christ, through faith. We are both made and declared righteous just as we are both made and commanded to be holy (1 Pet. 1).

I don't know that this righteous is to "perfect" (depending on if you are speaking of moral perfection), but instead I think it is a covenantal righteousness (perfect, to include moral perfection, is inherent and assumed of God; but here I think we are looking at what makes us "right" in terms of God's covenant with Abraham...and that is by faith). I agree that this does not have the Law in sight.

Actually I am simplifying the concept, saying differing words mean the same thing. Lets start with the concept that God, if He credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He puts us spiritually in Christ, a change in location from being in the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

1) Now this is our election (a conditional election) for salvation through faith in the truth.
2) This transfer baptizes us into Christ's death. Where we are justified by the circumcision of Christ.

 

[Van]

1) God makes those He regenerates righteous through the circumcision of Christ. Justification, being made righteous, occurs during regeneration when we undergo the circumcision of Christ.

2) Faith in Jesus in Romans 3:26 refers to our faith toward Jesus (Christ). However, redemption that is in Christ (Romans 3:24) refers to being spiritually located within Christ. We are justified through the redemption that is in Christ.

3) Propitiation provides the means of salvation, redemption is the act of salvation, and reconciliation is the result of salvation.

4) Justification occurs as a one time event, when we undergo the circumcision of Christ, but it has on-going affect, when we subsequently sin, it is just as though we did not sin.

5) Justification occurs during regeneration (the circumcision of Christ).

 

[JonC]

I agree with Martin on this. Repudiation of penal substitutionary atonement, if one is consistent in that repudiation, will lead them to absolute apostasy. However, not all who reject penal substitutionary atonement are consistent in their repudiation of it. One error always leads to another error if one is consistent with the error they have embraced.

One can be genuinely saved but mentally/doctrinally led astray. However, the salvation of the deceived does not justify their errors just because that error is continued among the saved.

Yes, of course. Everyone who holds a theory of atonement believes that their theory is correct and that if refuted to its logical conclusion theological chaos will ensue. Interestingly enough, John Wesley was one of the theories greatest supporters and it did not prevent him from slipping into soteriological error (but that is another subject).

My point is one of argument. Martin has committed a couple of fallacies here.

First, his is non sequitur argument. It does not follow that rejecting Penal Substitution results in the crumbling of one’s faith as history has proven otherwise. When we look back at those who we hold up as heroes of the faith, all held that there was a substitutionary aspect of the atonement but very few affirmed Penal Substitution Theory. And they were not inconsistent in their faith. Penal Substitution unchecked leads to Joyce Meyers claim that Jesus suffered three days in Hell. So no, the claim that an absence or rejection of Penal Substitution Theory will lead to one’s faith crumbling (even if taken to its logical conclusions) has been disproven time and time again throughout history. Does this mean Penal Substitution Theory is wrong? I don’t think so. I believe rejecting the theory results in misunderstanding the Cross. But it certainly does not lead to the crumbling of faith.

Second, his is a “slippery slope” argument. It takes rejecting his theory as leading to the crumbling of faith, but only within his theory itself. Anabaptists oppose Penal Substitution theory, and they do so consistently. Yet their faith has remained strong enough to sustain them (they are many of those heroes to which I have alluded). I believe they are wrong, but I can’t say that their conclusions are less than logical.

Third, Martin is changing the subject here. No one on this thread thus far has challenged the theory of substitutionary atonement. Yet Martin brings up Penal Substitution, again, as if it were his crowning statement on the topic of Justification. But read through the posts. Not one person has denied Penal Substitution.

It is wrong to change the topic in an argument and merely assume what has been said of others is about your newly introduced subject. But stating you are leaving and then making such a claim as your "final" post??? That's dishonest.

FOR EXAMPLE (example only), if I were to conclude here by saying "Ok, guys. But before I go I just want to make my point clear. Jesus is God and denying Jesus' divinity only leads to error." Yet no one here has denied Jesus' divinity. Do you not see that the subject has strongly shifted to PST as if that has been the topic all along? It's dishonest. *** NOT that Martin is a dishonest man (I consider him both a friend and a person of integrity...he has my respect) but that the post itself is dishonest to the argument (it addresses the topic only by pretense).

 

[JonC]

Actually I am simplifying the concept, saying differing words mean the same thing. Lets start with the concept that God, if He credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He puts us spiritually in Christ, a change in location from being in the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son.

1) Now this is our election (a conditional election) for salvation through faith in the truth.
2) This transfer baptizes us into Christ's death. Where we are justified by the circumcision of Christ.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree insofar as these differing words point to the same thing. But I do believe that they are pointing to different aspects of the same thing. For example, belief and repentance are different, but they are the "same thing".

 

[The Biblicist]

1) Being justified is a spiritual condition.

No, it is a legal condition before a court. In this context the term "justify" or "justified" is used in contrast to "works" as the basis for satisfying the "law" and its righteous demands. Thus it is the "law" that is in view which proves that "justify" is being used with regard to "law" and a legal verdict not based on works but on grace. This legal verdict is not based upon PERSONAL righteousness as ones CONDITION or as ones ACTIONS or faithfulness as it is the "ungodly" in both personal CONDITION and personal ACTION that is justfied by faith "without works." However, your concept of justification is the very reverse. You define the person justified not as "ungodly" but as personally MADE RIGHTEOUS by spiritual union and through a continuation due to spiritual union or a state of righteousness when Paul only uses completed action verbs directly contradicting your theory and then uses Abraham as an example confining justification "IN uncircumcision" rather than continuing action "IN circumcision."

3) Progressive sanctification is where we earn rewards as we serve Christ and strive to become more Christ-like, occurs while we are completely and totally justified. Nothing we do results in loss of our justification. We remain in Christ forever.

No! Regeneration brings the justified into actual spiritual union with God's life, light an holiness obtaining actual glorification of the spirit or inward man, whereby the indwelling Holy Spirit progressively imparts that state of internal righteousness by his power into our thoughts and affections manifested in words and actions whereby we are progressively being conformed into the image of Christ (God). Sanctification is the direct product of spiritual union.

In direct contrast justification is first giving the "ungodly" the LEGAL POSITION of righteousness before God's Law based wholly upon an ALIEN but substitutionary righteousness - the personal righteousness of Christ removing us from under the legal condemnation of the Law so that God can legally work in and through us to ultimate conform us to the image of His dear Son.

4) No need to deny God credits our faith as righteousness, just read Romans 4:4-5/24.

You are simply jerking "faith" out of its overall context which is defined precisely at the beginning and end of this section. He is not speaking of abstract faith. He is speaking of faith as previously defined as that which simply embraces the substitutionary Person and redemptive work of Christ as complete propitiation/satisfaction of all the Laws demands (righeousness and penal) as promised as the good news of the gospel. Hence, the faith that is counted for righteousness is the faith that receives Christ's finished work as the complete satisfaction of all the Law's demands against the "ungodly" which is descriptive of the sinners actual condition, and "without works" which is descriptive of the actions of the "ungodly."

5) Yes spiritual justification, being made righteous, occurs during our rebirth our regeneration, when we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation. This is the washing of regeneration.

Nowhere is the term "justify" or "justification" defined in Scripture as regeneration, birth, spiritual union, or "new creation." Nowhere is the term "jusitfy" or "justification" defined in scripture as "spiritual."

6) I am using "in Christ" as meaning God has spiritually put us into Christ, a positional change of location from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son. Yes, "in Christ" is used in more than one way, but usually in this way.

You are confusing "position" with "condition." Being "created in Christ" has to do with the CAUSE of "good works" (Eph. 2:10) and making the "ungodly" godly, whereas Justification is "without works" by the "ungodly" declaring them righteous based upon the substitutionary life and death of Christ "for us" rather than "in" us. You are confusing regeneration with justification and the two are not the same nor ever will be the same.

The seriousness of your error is the crux of what Paul calls "another gospel" as you are mixing the personal righteousness of Christ performed in and through his own body with the righteousness imparted in and then through the body of the saint.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, of course. Everyone who holds a theory of atonement believes that their theory is correct and that if refuted to its logical conclusion theological chaos will ensue. Interestingly enough, John Wesley was one of the theories greatest supporters and it did not prevent him from slipping into soteriological error (but that is another subject).

My point is one of argument. Martin has committed a couple of fallacies here.

First, his is non sequitur argument. It does not follow that rejecting Penal Substitution results in the crumbling of one’s faith as history has proven otherwise. When we look back at those who we hold up as heroes of the faith, all held that there was a substitutionary aspect of the atonement but very few affirmed Penal Substitution Theory. And they were not inconsistent in their faith. Penal Substitution unchecked leads to Joyce Meyers claim that Jesus suffered three days in Hell. So no, the claim that an absence or rejection of Penal Substitution Theory will lead to one’s faith crumbling (even if taken to its logical conclusions) has been disproven time and time again throughout history. Does this mean Penal Substitution Theory is wrong? I don’t think so. I believe rejecting the theory results in misunderstanding the Cross. But it certainly does not lead to the crumbling of faith.

I think you are wrong here. There is no salvation apart from penal substitutionary atonement, regardless of what a person may or may not believe about it. There is no salvation apart from both the active and passive obedience of Christ to the Law of God. His righteousness or active obedience to satisfy the righteous standard of the law is absolutely worthless if the penalty of the law is not equally satisfied "for us" as we can never satisfy an "eternal" penalty. His passive satisfaction of the Law of God is absolutley worthless unless the righteous standard of the law is also satisfied as we can "never" be "perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect" and that standard is "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:22). Rejection of either aspect entirely eliminates Biblical salvation altogether and transforms any gospel void of those two elements into "another gospel" altogether. Rejection of either denies the true gospel of Christ regardless if the individual is actually saved or not.

Second, his is a “slippery slope” argument. It takes rejecting his theory as leading to the crumbling of faith, but only within his theory itself. Anabaptists oppose Penal Substitution theory, and they do so consistently. Yet their faith has remained strong enough to sustain them (they are many of those heroes to which I have alluded). I believe they are wrong, but I can’t say that their conclusions are less than logical.

He is also without question correct in this point as well. Rejection of penal substitutionary atonement can only lead to crumbling of faith just as rejection of grace can only lead to crumbling of faith. Just because a person is saved does not mean everything they embrace as truth supports their saved condition. Saved people can be deceived and that deception NEVER leads to supporting truth but always leads to the destruction of truth, thus crumbling of faith is in progression REGARDLESS if it actualy arrives at that conclusion in the particlular life of an individual or group or not. The "leaven" is inherent in their theology and it will eventually lead some to that consistent end - a crumbled faith.

Third, Martin is changing the subject here. No one on this thread thus far has challenged the theory of substitutionary atonement. Yet Martin brings up Penal Substitution, again, as if it were his crowning statement on the topic of Justification. But read through the posts. Not one person has denied Penal Substitution.

In truth there is no such thing as "substitutionary atonement" apart from both the active and passive obedience of Christ - it simply does not exist if TRUTH is the standard for defining "substitutionary atonement." It is like arguing that faith is essential for salvation without repentance -but no such salvation exists IN TRUTH without repentance and faith. To repudiate one is to repudiate all.

FOR EXAMPLE (example only), if I were to conclude here by saying "Ok, guys. But before I go I just want to make my point clear. Jesus is God and denying Jesus' divinity only leads to error." Yet no one here has denied Jesus' divinity. Do you not see that the subject has strongly shifted to PST as if that has been the topic all along? It's dishonest.

Again, "substitutionary atonement" does not exist apart from both active and passive obedience of Christ, to deny one is to deny the other, to exclude one is to exclude the other. I could care less what men believe, the Biblical doctrine demands both and both stand together or fall together regardless of the personal salvation condition of the individual denying one or the other. This is true regardless if that denial does or does not actually crumble their faith. That error if held consistently only leads to crumbling of faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no chronological order but there is a chronological order

I meant to say, "There is no chonological order but there is a LOGICAL order"

 

[JamesL]

Dang,
There are about 4 threads going here. I just read the entire thing and wanted to jump in back on page 3....

But maybe a few comments here instead...
I think JonC and Biblicist have approached that phase of the discussion from erroneous concepts espoused by Greek philosophers who were masquerading as theologians back in the 2nd to 4th centuries

Much has been made of Jesus'supposed "two natures" and a supposed hypostasis of supposed "human" and "divine" natures. There was a mention of Jesus having two spirits, the fictitious notion of "as a man" and "as God" as if He were operating in Modalist fashion, the fantasy concept of fully man and fully God....good grief.

All this because two men start from concepts where past men have concocted theories in their own futile thinking, insisted the notions are explicitly taught in scripture when they're not, then demanded adherence to these traditions of men - or else.

I think the discussion would be much more fruitful if we stop worrying about whether we're faithful to mere men who have fabricated doctrine

 

[The Biblicist]

No, it is a legal condition before a court. In this context the term "justify" or "justified" is used in connection with the word "law" proving it is a legal term expressing a legal verdict. This legal verdict is not based upon PERSONAL righteousness as ones CONDITION or as ones ACTIONS or faithfulness as it is the "ungodly" in both personal CONDITION and personal ACTION that is justfied by faith "without works." However, your concept of justification is the very reverse. You define the person justified not as "ungodly" but as personally MADE RIGHTEOUS by spiritual union and through a continuation due to spiritual union or a state of righteousness when Paul only uses completed action verbs directly contradicting your theory and then uses Abraham as an example confining justification "IN uncircumcision" rather than continuing action "IN circumcision."


No! Regeneration brings the justified into actual spiritual union with God's life, light an holiness obtaining actual glorification of the spirit or inward man, whereby the indwelling Holy Spirit progressively imparts that state of internal righteousness by his power into our thoughts and affections manifested in words and actions whereby we are progressively being conformed into the image of Christ (God). Sanctification is the direct product of spiritual union.

In direct contrast justification is first giving the "ungodly" the LEGAL POSITION of righteousness before God's Law based wholly upon an ALIEN but substitutionary righteousness - the personal righteousness of Christ removing us from under the legal condemnation of the Law so that God can legally work in and through us to ultimate conform us to the image of His dear Son.





You are simply jerking "faith" out of its overall context which is defined precisely at the beginning and end of this section. He is not speaking of abstract faith. He is speaking of faith as previously defined as that which simply embraces the substitutionary Person and redemptive work of Christ as complete propitiation/satisfaction of all the Laws demands (righeousness and penal) as promised as the good news of the gospel. Hence, the faith that is counted for righteousness is the faith that receives Christ's finished work as the complete satisfaction of all the Law's demands against the "ungodly" which is descriptive of the sinners actual condition, and "without works" which is descriptive of the actions of the "ungodly."



Nowhere is the term "justify" or "justification" defined in Scripture as regeneration, birth, spiritual union, or "new creation." Nowhere is the term "jusitfy" or "justification" defined in scripture as "spiritual."



You are confusing "position" with "condition." Being "created in Christ" has to do with the CAUSE of "good works" (Eph. 2:10) and making the "ungodly" godly, whereas Justification is "without works" by the "ungodly" declaring them righteous based upon the substitutionary life and death of Christ "for us" rather than "in" us. You are confusing regeneration with justification and the two are not the same nor ever will be the same.

The seriousness of your error is the crux of what Paul calls "another gospel" as you are mixing the personal righteousness of Christ performed in and through his own body with the righteousness imparted in and then through the body of the saint.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

Dang,
There are about 4 threads going here. I just read the entire thing and wanted to jump in back on page 3....

But maybe a few comments here instead...
I think JonC and Biblicist have approached that phase of the discussion from erroneous concepts espoused by Greek philosophers who were masquerading as theologians back in the 2nd to 4th centuries

Much has been made of Jesus'supposed "two natures" and a supposed hypostasis of supposed "human" and "divine" natures. There was a mention of Jesus having two spirits, the fictitious notion of "as a man" and "as God" as if He were operating in Modalist fashion, the fantasy concept of fully man and fully God....good grief.

All this because two men start from concepts where past men have concocted theories in their own futile thinking, insisted the notions are explicitly taught in scripture when they're not, then demanded adherence to these traditions of men - or else.

I think the discussion would be much more fruitful if we stop worrying about whether we're faithful to mere men who have fabricated doctrine

So enlighten us and explain how the person of Jesus Christ relates to both God and man.

 

[The Biblicist]

Van's definition of justification is being made righteous by spiritual union. Hence, justification equals a state of godliness.

Paul's definition of justification is WITHOUT BEING IN A CONDITION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS ("ungodly") by faith not by regeneration, by imputation not by impartation whether that imparation is due to spiritual union or sanctification.

The difference between Van's definition of justification and Paul's definition of justification is the difference between righteousness obtained in OUR PERSON by spiritual union with Christ (regeneration/direct spiritual impartation) versus obtained in CHRIST'S PERSON by faith through imputation based upon substitution.

Van confuses justification with regeneration making them one and the same, whereas Paul distinguishes between them without denying both occur simeltanous together securing both a legal and spiritual condition.

 

[JonC]

I think you are wrong here. There is no salvation apart from penal substitutionary atonement, regardless of what a person may or may not believe about it.

Actually, brother, that is my point. I think that Penal Substitution is vital because it has in mind not only Christ's vicarious death but also our punishment. But the ECF's did not see the main point of the Cross to be Penal Substitution (for the most part, they focused on the victory of Christ over death). There are places in Scripture, of course, where Paul speaks of the atonement without even bring up penal substitution (I would argue that it is implied).

But we need to realize that for centuries scholars that we sometimes turn to did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory, yet they were consistent in working out their faith. For example, Thomas Aquinas did not believe that Christ suffered our punishment (in fact, he flat out denied the possibility). Augustine did not hold to PST. Neither did any of the early church fathers. They all may not have denied the theory, and they may have held elements (punishment and substitution) of PST, but none of them held PST as we view it today.

And again, this is a smoke screen by Martin insofar as the topic at hand. NO.One HERE HAS THUS FAR DENIED PENAL SUBSTITUTION THEORY (which will change now).....why are we even arguing it on this thread?

If the topic is gong to be PST, then please start another thread on behalf of Martin.