Two Justifications or One??

[BobRyan]

In Romans 5:1 we read "Having BEEN Justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" - this clearly points to justification "past".

In Romans 2:11-13 Paul talks about the one that "WILL BE Justified" on that day WHEN according to my Gospel God WILL judge the secrets of all mankind through the man Christ Jesus.

Romans 2 speaks of Justification linked to obedience as does James 2.

But Romans 3 and Romans 5 speak of Justification by faith past tense that is "by faith and not by the works of the Law".

Are there two justifications -- one past (subjective and by faith APART from works) and one future (at the Judgment seat of Christ - corporate, objective and using the Romans 2 and James 2 model)??

What say you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

Romans: 5
1: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:


Romans, chapter 2
11: For there is no respect of persons with God.
12: For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13: (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

I see Romans 5 speaking of the saved now and Romans 2:11-13 speaking about what the unsaved must do to be saved.

I think both are talking about now and not the future. It would be the future for the unsaved but future in a sense of "when they believe", not future like the second coming of Christ.

Unless I misunderstand your question.

 

[Jarthur001]

In Romans 5:1 we read "Having BEEN Justified by faith we HAVE peace with God" - this clearly points to justification "past".

In Romans 2:11-13 Paul talks about the one that "WILL BE Justified" on that day WHEN according to my Gospel God WILL judge the secrets of all mankind through the man Christ Jesus.

Romans 2 speaks of Justification linked to obedience as does James 2.

But Romans 3 and Romans 5 speak of Justification by faith past tense that is "by faith and not by the works of the Law".

Are there two justifications -- one past (subjective and by faith APART from works) and one future (at the Judgment seat of Christ - corporate, objective and using the Romans 2 and James 2 model)??

What say you?

In Christ,

Bob

Hello Bob,

Last summer I went to a Bible conference and one workshop had Daniel Carfrey from a local Bible college that made this "two Justifications" argument. This was the 1st time I have heard of this. I did not study it to see if I agree, but from what I remember, he made a good case. But I felt the main goal was to make both sides of the C/A debate work.

I have a few pages of notes on it, but I have no idea where they are. The speaker Carfrey was from Appalachian Bible College which is a school I trust. If I have the time,i'll look for my notes on this.

Link to ABC...
http://www.abc.edu/academics/faculty.php


In Christ...James

 

[Brother Bob]

Beckley, WV...
..

 

[Jarthur001]

Beckley, WV...
..


Hello Bro Bob,


Yes, ..right outside of Beckley. Bradley is the small town. My wife and my two older girls are going there tomorrow for a Ladies Bible thingy...not sure what its called.



In Christ ....James

 

[Brother Bob]

You only 2 hrs away from where I live.

 

[BobRyan]

Hello Bob,

Last summer I went to a Bible conference and one workshop had Daniel Carfrey from a local Bible college that made this "two Justifications" argument. This was the 1st time I have heard of this. I did not study it to see if I agree, but from what I remember, he made a good case. But I felt the main goal was to make both sides of the C/A debate work.

I have a few pages of notes on it, but I have no idea where they are. The speaker Carfrey was from Appalachian Bible College which is a school I trust. If I have the time,i'll look for my notes on this.

Link to ABC...
http://www.abc.edu/academics/faculty.php


In Christ...James

Thanks I will take a look.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 2

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.


14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

God appears to be speaking of a specific future day - for this future justification of those who "Will be justified" if found to be doers not merely hearers.

 

[Brother Bob]

all I know Bob is that the saved has already been judged worthy inwardly of eternal life and raised from a dead state of sin unto a lively hope in Jesus Christ and the Body is yet to receive justification when it gets its change. I suspect that is what it is talking about.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with the first part but the second part "body judged worthy" I have no clue about.

My point is that the two justifications are exactly what we see in the case of Job 1 and 2. God is not "confused" at all -- neither is He "judging Job's body". What is happening is God STARTS by affirming Job's new-birth child-of-God status and Satan STARTS by accusing Job and denying the ruling of God.

The next thing we see is God claiming the Matt 7 "By their fruits you shall know them" rule in Job's case saying in essence "The data will SHOW that I am correct" and allowing His decision to be "audited" via the real world facts in the life of Job.

So Job already had the new-birth and "justification past" to start with - but then there was "an audit" and "by their fruits you shall know them" was very accurately and methodically played out - Job would not have been approved by simply "cursing God and dying" at that point. It would have dishonored God and proven Satan's accusations.

In Dan 7:22 we find that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" at that future point in time of the Judgment seat of Christ. The "details" - the "records" the Romans 2 "deeds mentioned" prove God to be right.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

BobR; I misspoke when I said Judged concerning the body. I went back and changed it to justified. The inward part was justified by the blood of the lamb when it was born again but the body is waiting on its change (justification) in the resurrection. When it says justified in the future it has to mean the body and not on what works we do from here on but what we have already done. The same is true with them under the Law for that is past but their body will be justified by whether they were a doer and not just a hearer. What we or they have done is in the past but the change for the body is in the future or (justification).

This is what it must be talking about Bob for the body is sown in dishonor so there is no way that it has already been justified worthy of eternal life.

Paul wrote and said:
Thou fool how can that be quickened except it first die.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

1 Corinthians, chapter 15
41": There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

"42": So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

"43": It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

"44": It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

inwardly we have been born again and its not outwardly or we would not have to die the natural death.

Rom 6:4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

But outwardly we still must receive that change for the creature itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption also, unto the glorious liberties of the children of God. (That "also" means something was already delivered).

 

[Hope of Glory]

But I felt the main goal was to make both sides of the C/A debate work.

Both sides have part of it right and part of it wrong. But, it makes sense that someone teaching on two justifications would make such a connection.

BobRyan, I think we have more in common than we have differences.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Both sides have part of it right and part of it wrong. But, it makes sense that someone teaching on two justifications would make such a connection.

BobRyan, I think we have more in common than we have differences.

It is exactly like arguing whether God is three or one

whether God is soverign or whether man has free will

whether we should have pepperoni or mushrooms on our pizza.

The answer is both!