How is "justification" defined?

[Geralt]

conflicting arguments. you were saying christ only broke the 'ceremonial law' - (which you imply is NOT the law of God but only the Moral law), now you're saying christ did not really break any law for he was exempted by virtue of his deity.

are you deriving this conclusions by common sense ?​

You just answered your own question. Since the law of Moses encompasses both moral, ceremonial and judiciary a person who breaks a ceremonial part of the law of Moses has not broken the moral law of God. Non-Israelites (who were never subject to the law of Moses) who ate an "unclean" animal or didn't do the ritual bowl washing did not break the moral law even though they disobeyed the law of Moses.

I know. How is that relevant?

I would have no problem saying Christ broke the law God gave to Moses if he did because Christ is above the law. He is not subject to the Sabbath. He is Lord of the Sabbath.

 

[Geralt]

nah, only your version of christ broke the law- a sinless christ who broke the law given by God to israel. this is as confusing as your faith, and yet you call yourself a follower of christ - who broke the law.

what is commonly believed (and you can just google it) is Christ never broke the law and obeyed it perfectly, what you alleged he broke is not the law but the wrong interpretation of the law by the jews of his time. much like what you are doing right now, interpreting christs actions differently. you may say you are being pharisaic.
​

Jesus both broke the law and challenged it. No one is dealing with mark 7 where Jesus clearly challenges many of the food laws.

Did Jesus sin? Of course not. But He definitely broke the law of Moses on several occasions.

 

[expos4ever]

nah, only your version of christ broke the law- a sinless christ who broke the law given by God to israel. this is as confusing as your faith, and yet you call yourself a follower of christ - who broke the law.​

Your questioning of my faith comes very close to violating this rule of the forum:

"Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed."

what is commonly believed (and you can just google it) is Christ never broke the law and obeyed it perfectly, what you alleged he broke is not the law but the wrong interpretation of the law by the jews of his time. much like what you are doing right now, interpreting christs actions differently. you may say you are being pharisaic.

This is the argument that is most often put forward - that Jesus never challenged the Law of Moses but instead challenged Pharasaical additions to the Law. Well Jesus did challenge such additions. But - and this is really an important bit of basic logic - the fact that Jesus challenges additions to the Law does not mean that Jesus also believed the time of the applicability of the Law of Moses was over.

I believe you are in an impossible position if we take Mark 7 as it reads:

1. We know that the Law of Moses declares that many foods are unclean;
2. Jesus declares that no foods are unclean.

End of argument. It doesn't matter that Jesus also criticized the Pharisees for their practice of adding to the Law.

 

[expos4ever]

Further to the question of the present status of the Law of Moses. Respected New Testament scholar NT Wright writes:

"The Torah is given for a specific period of time, and is then set aside – not because it was a bad thing now happily abolished, but because it was a good thing whose purpose had now been accomplished"

People need to understand - and some clearly choose to not even consider this - that the "fulfillment" of the Law of Moses does not necessarily imply that it remains in force. If we take the concept of "fulfill" as denoting "achieve the intended purpose" - a very reasonable assumption I suggest - we can see how this works. When I get sick, I am given antibiotics. When these antibiotics achieve their intended purpose do I keep taking them for the rest of my life?

Of course not.

Same with the Law of Moses - it had a goal (purpose), that goal was fulfilled through the work of Jesus, and now the Law of Moses is set aside.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word Justified means to be declared legally righteous.
The word Sanctified means to be made holy.

Then there is the:

Process of Justification and the
Process of Sanctification.

Justification happens when we believe Jesus as our Savior and trust that He has forgiven us of our sins when we believe in his death, burial, and resurrection on our behalf. For new believers this involves them calling out to Jesus so as to forgive them of their sins. For the seasoned believer this would be confessing any occasional sin on their righteous walk with the LORD. Justification is how we are initially and ultimately saved (But it is not at the exclusion of the Process of Sanctification - which comes after initial Justification or acceptance of Christ).

Sanctification happens when Jesus moves and does the good work within our hearts and lives. This is the process whereby you obey the LORD by keeping His Commandments (Which is a fulfillment of His good will and pleasure). It is a walk with God whereby you are made more holy by living more and more righteously in your dedication to Him. Sanctification is the proof that Jesus lives in you (who is the source of your Salvation or eternal life). No Jesus and there is no life (1 John 5:12). No fruit of the Lord being found within your life means there is no LORD in your life (And again, one cannot be saved without abiding in Christ). But what about Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4? These verses are talking about initial salvation and they are attacking the heresy of Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism without a Savior or without grace. They also are addressing the problem of going back to the Old Law (i.e. the Law of Moses) and not the New Law (or Commands given to us in the New Testament). James 2:17 and James 2:24 is talking about Christ directed works done thru your life.

While it appears that the words "justified" and "sanctified" can be used interchangeably between talkiing about the "Process of Justification" and the "Process of Sanctification" ("Sanctified" used in reference to Sanctification: Ephesians 5:26; "Sanctified" used in reference to Justification: Hebrews 10:10; Justified used in reference to Justification Romans 5:9, Galatians 2:16: Justified used in reference to Sanctification: James 2:24), the one key difference is that the word "Sanctified" is never used in reference to a person believing on Jesus Christ as their Savior for salvation within the Bible. Being "Sanctified" is only in reference to the atonement of Christ's blood and in reference to the "Process of Sanctification" for our lives. Granted, this does not mean a new believer cannot be made holy (or sanctified) by Christ's sacrifice by having a belief alone if they do not live long enough to live out their faith (like those who accept Christ shortly before they die (like the thief on the cross)). It simply means that a believer who does live out their faith here on this Earth cannot skip the Sanctification process and be saved. For without holiness no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).

Also, the word "Justification" is used exclusively in reference for "The Process of Justification" and
the word "Sanctification" is used exclusively for "The Process of Sanctification."

Anyways, you can check out the words "justified", "sanctified", "justification", and "sanctification" for yourself at Blue Letter Bible for yourself.

https://www.blueletterbible.org

May God bless you all.
And please be well in the LORD.


...

 

[samir]

conflicting arguments. you were saying christ only broke the 'ceremonial law' - (which you imply is NOT the law of God but only the Moral law), now you're saying christ did not really break any law for he was exempted by virtue of his deity.

are you deriving this conclusions by common sense ?​

You seem very confused so I'll try to explain it slowly.

you were saying christ only broke the 'ceremonial law'

Incorrect. I never said Christ broke any law. expos4ever made a good argument that Christ broke the law of Moses. I simply pointed out that it wouldn't be a sin if he did.

You admitted the law of Moses included ceremonial laws in addition to moral laws. Logically, that means Christ could have broken the law of Moses without breaking the moral law.

I think Christ might have broken the law of Moses based on what expos4ever wrote but I don't know for sure. I wanted to see if you could refute his argument. It appears you're unable to and prefer to ignore it.

'ceremonial law' - (which you imply is NOT the law of God but only the Moral law)

I thought we already established that was part of the law of Moses and separate from God's moral laws.

now you're saying christ did not really break any law for he was exempted by virtue of his deity.

Incorrect. I think he may have broken the law of Moses which wouldn't be a sin since Christ is not subject to that law.

are you deriving this conclusions by common sense ?

I'm relying on sound reasoning and basic logic. Hope that helps.

 

[fhansen]

I was trying to respond to the OP in this thread:



I would like to explore this argument, but first I would like to verify what definitions are assumed. I first asked the author, then the thread participants, how they define "justification", but no one responded.

I would be interested in hearing how anyone in this forum that agrees with the above argument defines "justification".

Thank you.

It's simply to be made right-or just. Only God can do this for man-because He is our justice. All truth and righteousness flow through Him.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But Sanctification (i.e. to walk righteously or to do good works 1 John 3:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Ephesians 5:25-26) also comes from Jesus (See Philippians 2:13, John 15:5); For Jesus does the good work thru the saint, which is a necessary part of of their salvation if they are to live out their faith. Why? Because it shows that the believer is truly abiding in Christ (Who is the source of their salvation). For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). In other words, if a believer abides in Christ, then life (eternal life) will be in their possession; And if they abide in Christ, then good fruit and not bad fruit will be evident in their life. This is why Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:5 that we are to prove that Christ is in us unless we are reprobate.

Now, how can we have an assurance that Christ is in us or that we know the LORD?
Well, 1 John 2:3-4 says,

3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3-4).


...

 

[expos4ever]

I suggest that we have significantly misunderstood justification. I think that we have let the "tail wag the dog" in adopting a purely "lawcourt" concept of justification (the idea that justification means to be declared "in the right from a legal perspective"). By "tail wagging the dog" I mean that we have, no doubt without intent, co-opted this "secular" meaning of justification (to become legally in the right) and applied that definition to Biblical uses of "justification".

However, I suggest that if we look at the whole Biblical narrative, we will see that the primary meaning of justification is the recognition that one is a member of God's true covenant family. And, yes, this includes being declared to be "in the right". But it also includes much more.

 

[fhansen]

But Sanctification (i.e. to walk righteously or to do good works 1 John 3:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, Ephesians 5:25-26) also comes from Jesus (See Philippians 2:13, John 15:5); For Jesus does the good work thru the saint, which is a necessary part of of their salvation if they are to live out their faith. Why? Because it shows that the believer is truly abiding in Christ (Who is the source of their salvation). For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). In other words, if a believer abides in Christ, then life (eternal life) will be in their possession; And if they abide in Christ, then good fruit and not bad fruit will be evident in their life. This is why Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:5 that we are to prove that Christ is in us unless we are reprobate.

Now, how can we have an assurance that Christ is in us or that we know the LORD?
Well, 1 John 2:3-4 says,

3 "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3-4).


...

And this, of course, is because Jesus is God

 

[fhansen]

I suggest that we have significantly misunderstood justification. I think that we have let the "tail wag the dog" in adopting a purely "lawcourt" concept of justification (the idea that justification means to be declared "in the right from a legal perspective"). By "tail wagging the dog" I mean that we have, no doubt without intent, co-opted this "secular" meaning of justification (to become legally in the right) and applied that definition to Biblical uses of "justification".

However, I suggest that if we look at the whole Biblical narrative, we will see that the primary meaning of justification is the recognition that one is a member of God's true covenant family. And, yes, this includes being declared to be "in the right". But it also includes much more.

Yes! Justification is more than the forgiveness of sin-and perhaps a declaration or imputation of justice. It's also about helping us to 'go, and sin no more'-genuine justice IOW. It's a total package, working out our salvation with He who works in us, whereupon He, at the end of our lives, knows/judges who has attained eternal life and who has not. We have an assurance meanwhile, based on the fruits we've produced and His witness inside, based on the transformation He's making in us, and not without our cooperation.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes! Justification is more than the forgiveness of sin-and perhaps a declaration or imputation of justice. It's also about helping us to 'go, and sin no more'-genuine justice IOW. It's a total package, working out our salvation with He who works in us, whereupon He, at the end of our lives, knows/judges who has attained eternal life and who has not. We have an assurance meanwhile, based on the fruits we've produced and His witness inside, based on the transformation He's making in us, and not without our cooperation.

I agree but this is not the whole picture. It seems to me that we focus too much on "our salvation" and "our personal walk". However, if to be "justified" means to be declared the "true members of the covenant", this means we inherit all the rights and responsibilities of that covenant. And without getting into the details, I think this means that we are called to be the instruments by which God's kingdom project of redeeming His created order is carried out.

In short, we have work to do in the here and now precisely in virtue of our status as "justified" covenant members. The Bible is a narrative - an evolving story - and true covenant members have a role to play in moving that story forward.

I am not suggesting you disagree with this, but I just wanted to express this.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[DingDing]

hedrick, did you miss my question? Here is our exchange.

That’s not so clear...

Please think about your reply. Is this your whole and only response? You have not yet even addressed the scriptures I have mentioned. Please, to the best of your ability, address the two scriptures I mentioned (the Sermon and Romans 2:5-10). And ask for help from others if you need to; but please address the scriptures I mentioned. This really is important stuff.