Is Evangelicalism a false religion?

[Fervent]

Firstly, thanks for the response.

Mind citing your source for "Justification = ..." It sounds theological vs. lexical.



NKJ 1 Thess. 3:9-10 For what thanks can we render to God for you, for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake before our God, 10 night and day praying exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?

Seems there is such a thing as an incomplete faith for someone who has come to faith.



A few responses

- I've not said faith is a work. You must have misunderstood.
- The gift of faith is another discussion, I'd prefer to defer for now. We'd probably mostly agree, but maybe not on all referenced verses???
- Even assuming faith to be a gift, it is tested, which is how James begins his letter:

NKJ James 1:2-3 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.
​

- Agree with your first statement.
- Agree that this is what Paul is quoting.
- There is righteousness according to law and righteousness that came separate from the law (Christ). Again agree with with what I understand you to be saying.
- Agree that we must have Christ's righteousness credited to us from faith in what God commands us to believe.
- Should note here that our righteousness does not stop at credited righteousness: NKJ 1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
​

- This is one of the issues I mentioned re: being in theological boxes. You seem to be equating Justification, which I was discussing, with Salvation. The 2 words are not equal and do not mean the same thing.
- Paul is in fact talking about our entrance into God's Salvation.
- I think we agree that when we enter God's Salvation, we are justified from faith apart from works, and there is no boast on our part because this entrance is God's work into His Salvation. Even from there, our boast is always in Christ as everything we do in God's Salvation is founded on His work and involves His empowerment.
- My point is that James is not talking about our entrance into Salvation, but talking about being tested after we enter God's Salvation.
​

- Still need your citation for the definition of justifaction.
- I think James disagrees with you re: only 1 justification. I think those who canonized may also disagree with you. I see no disagreement between James and Paul.
- It seems we could get into disagreement re: permanency, so I'd prefer to set it aside for now as another discussion.
- What if I asked you if sanctification is exclusive to only referring to the growth & development of one who has already believed? NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
- If I'm correct in how I'm seeing James & Paul, then when we first believed, and God credited Christ's righteous to us, and we were thus first justified/declared righteous, and we were first sanctified, and washed, etc..., within God's Salvation Plan, we then are trained and developed as His Children to maturity, and along this course our faith is developed and completed through continued sanctification, and additional justifications as we are tested by God.
- I know the Salvation/Justification > Sanctification > Glorification theological box. I've come out of it by studying the terminology of Scripture as it is actually used.​

- The problem with my analysis, or yours? No rudeness intended.
- I understand your points. I too was trained in theologies. I don't think James was speaking of the justification you're speaking of. I think the longer we remain in that theological box, the longer this alleged conflict between Paul & James remains. I've proposed part of what I see as the potential solution.
​

Rather than leave you to do the work to cite things, I'm going to provide the following. The Greek word here is "dikaioō" in case you don't read Greek. So, just pick up the English. I'm taking it from "justified" in the 1 Cor 6:11 verse I inserted above. You'll see that there is much more range in the meaning of the word than the theological definition you're presenting.

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1aor. ἐδικαίωσα; pf. pass. δεδικαίωμαι; 1aor. pass. ἐδικαιώθην; 1fut. pass. δικαιωθήσομαι; (1) generally make right or just; (2) as behaving in a way expected of the one δίκαιος (righteous, just) obey God's requirements, live right, do right (RV 22.11); (3) as demonstrating that someone is δίκαιος vindicate, show to be right (LU 10.29); (4) as acknowledging that someone is just justify, vindicate (LU 7.29); (5) as a religious technical term; (a) of imputed righteousness, as God's judging and saving activity in relation to persons justify, declare righteous, put right with (himself) (RO 3.24); (b) experientially, of imparted righteousness as freedom from sin's power make free, release, set free; passive be set free (RO 6.7) Friberg Lexicon

δικαιόω
(a) to put right with 34.46
(b) show to be right 88.16
(c) acquit 56.34
(d) set free 37.138
(e) obey righteous commands 36.22
Louw-Nida Lexicon

δικαιόω, Ion. impf. δικαιεῦν: f. ώσω and ώσομαι: aor. i ἐδικαίωσαass., aor. i ἐδικαιώθην: (δίκαιος):
I. to set right: Pass., δικαιωθείς proved, tested, Aesch.
II. to hold or deem right, think fit, demand, c. inf., Hdt., etc.; inf. omitted, as οὕτω δικαιοῦν (sc. γενέσθαι) Id.:-to consent, δουλεύειν Id.; οὐ δ. to refuse, Thuc.:-c. acc. pers. et inf. to desire one to do, Hdt.
III. to do a man right or justice, to judge, i.e.,
1. to condemn, Thuc.: to chastise, punish, Hdt.
2. to deem righteous, justify, N.T. Hence δικαίωμα
Liddell Scott Lexicon

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1 aor. ἐδικαίωσα. Pass.: 1 fut. δικαιωθήσομαι; 1 aor. ἐδικαιώθην, subj. δικαιωθῶ, ptc. δικαιωθείς; pf. δεδικαίωμαι Ro 6:7; 1 Cor 4:4; ptc. δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14 (Soph., Hdt.; Aristot., EN 1136a; et al.; pap, LXX; En 102:10; TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34]; Test12Patr; ApcSed, 14:8 p. 136, 15 Ja.; Jos., Ant. 17, 206; Just.; Ath., R. 53, 1; 65, 14) to practice δικαιοσύνη.

1.to take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause τινά (Polyb. 3, 31, 9 ὑμᾶς δὲ αὐτοὺς … δικαιώσεσθε ‘you will (find it necessary to) take up your own cause’ = you will sit in judgment on yourselves; Cass. Dio 48, 46 ‘Antony was not taking Caesar’s side’ in the matter; 2 Km 15:4; Ps 81:3) δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον take up the cause of an upright pers. 1 Cl 16:12 (Is 53:11); τινί χήρᾳ (χήραν v.l.) 8:4 (Is 1:17 ‘take up the cause of the widow’).

2. to render a favorable verdict, vindicate.

a. as activity of humans justify, vindicate, treat as just (Appian, Liby. 17 §70; Gen 44:16; Sir 10:29; 13:22; 23:11 al.) θέλων δ. ἑαυτόν wishing to justify himself Lk 10:29; δ. ἑαυτὸν ἐνώπιόν τινος j. oneself before someone=‘you try to make out a good case for yourselves before the public’ 16:15 (δ. ἐαυτόν as En 102:10; but s. JJeremias, ZNW 38, ’39, 117f [against him SAalen, NTS 13, ’67, 1ff]). ὁ δικαιούμενός μοι the one who vindicates himself before (or against) me B 6:1 (cp. Is 50:8). τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν βαπτισθέντες tax-collectors affirmed God’s uprightness and got baptized i.e. by ruling in God’s favor they admitted that they were in the wrong and took a new direction (opp. τὴν βουλὴν τ. θεοῦ ἀθετεῖν) Lk 7:29 (cp. PsSol 2:15; 3:5; 8:7, 23; 9:2).

b. of experience or activity of transcendent figures, esp. in relation to humans

α. of wisdom ἐδικαιώθη ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς is vindicated by her children (on δικ. ἀπό cp. Is 45:25. S. also Appian, Basil. 8: δικαιόω=consider someth. just or correct) Lk 7:35; also ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς Mt 11:19 (v.l. τέκνων). On this saying s. DVölter, NThT 8, 1919, 22-42; JBover, Biblica 6, 1925, 323-25; 463-65; M-JLagrange, ibid. 461-63. Of an angel Hm 5, 1, 7.

β. of God be found in the right, be free of charges (cp. TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34] ‘be vindicated’ in a trial by fire) Mt 12:37 (opp. καταδικάζειν). δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14; GJs 5:1; δεδικαιωμένη (Salome) 20:4 (not pap). Ac 13:39 (but s. 3 below); Rv 22:11 v.l; Dg 5:14.—Paul, who has influenced later wr. (cp. Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 102, 2f]), uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment. As affirmative verdict Ro 2:13. Esp. of pers. δικαιοῦσθαι be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become δίκαιος, receive the divine gift of δικαιοσύνη through faith in Christ Jesus and apart from νόμος as a basis for evaluation (MSeifrid, Justification by Faith—The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme ’92) 3:20 (Ps 142:2), 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 2:16f (Ps 142:2); 3:11, 24; 5:4; Tit 3:7; Phil 3:12 v.l.; B 4:10; 15:7; IPhld 8:2; Dg 9:4; (w. ἁγιάζεσθαι) Hv 3, 9, 1. οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι I am not justified by this (after 1 Cor 4:4) IRo 5:1. ἵνα δικαιωθῇ σου ἡ σάρξ that your flesh (as the sinful part) may be acquitted Hs 5, 7, 1; δ. ἔργοις by (on the basis of) works, by what one does 1 Cl 30:3; cp. Js 2:21, 24f e;;ργον 1a and πίστις 2dδ); δι᾽ ἐαυτῶν δ. by oneself=as a result of one’s own accomplishments 1 Cl 32:4. (cp. κατὰ νόμον Hippol., Ref. 7, 34, 1).—Since Paul views God’s justifying action in close connection with the power of Christ’s resurrection, there is sometimes no clear distinction between the justifying action of acquittal and the gift of new life through the Holy Spirit as God’s activity in promoting uprightness in believers. Passages of this nature include Ro 3:26, 30; 4:5 (on δικαιοῦν τὸν ἀσεβῆ cp. the warning against accepting δῶρα to arrange acquittal Ex 23:7 and Is 5:23; δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν Ro 3:24 is therefore all the more pointed); 8:30, 33 (Is 50:8); Gal 3:8; Dg 9:5. For the view (held since Chrysostom) that δ. in these and other pass. means ‘make upright’ s. Goodsp., Probs. 143-46, JBL 73, ’54, 86-91.

3. to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure (the act. Ps 72:13) in our lit. pass. δικαιοῦμαι be set free, made pure ἀπό from (Sir 26:29; TestSim 6:1, both δικ. ἀπὸ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας) ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμω Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι from everything fr. which you could not be freed by the law of Moses Ac 13:38; cp. vs. 39. ὁ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τ. ἁμαρτίας the one who died is freed fr. sin Ro 6:7 (s. KKuhn, ZNW 30, ’31, 305-10; EKlaar, ibid. 59, ’68, 131-34). In the context of 1 Cor 6:11 ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.—In the language of the mystery religions (Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 258ff) δικαιοῦσθαι refers to a radical inner change which the initiate experiences (Herm. Wr. 13, 9 χωρὶς γὰρ κρίσεως ἰδὲ πῶς τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐξήλασεν. ἐδικαιώθημεν, ὦ τέκνον, ἀδικίας ἀπούσης) and approaches the sense ‘become deified’. Some are inclined to find in 1 Ti 3:16 a similar use; but see under 4.

4. to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right, pass. of God is proved to be right Ro 3:4; 1 Cl 18:4 (both Ps 50:6). Of Christ 1 Ti 3:16.—Lit. s. on δικαιοσύνη 3c.—HRosman, Iustificare (δικαιοῦν) est verbum causativum: Verbum Domini 21, ’41, 144-47; NWatson, Δικ. in the LXX, JBL 79, ’60, 255-66; CCosgrove, JBL 106, ’87, 653—70.—DELG s.v. δίκη. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.
BDAG Lexicon

It's sad how often lexicons slip theological conclusions into their definitions of terms.

 

[misput]

This is one of the takes on justification in James - that it is a justification before people, not God.

That used to make sense to me. But James uses the Abraham history (Gen22) to point to God's test in the sacrifice of Isaac, which was between Abraham, Isaac & God (and the ram!), so I currently don't see the justification James speaks of as pertaining to being deemed righteous before others (except Isaac).

Paul uses Abraham differently and covers over 25+ years of Abraham's story (Gen13-22) to speak of justification.

At least one of the other posters in this discussion brought out how we're viewing words like justification and others in this matter. I agree that this is likely a key to understanding the issue. I also have come to see how a discussion on the forms of the word "save" and of "salvation" are important.

I am surprised you do not consider Abrahams faith in connection to his willingness to sacrifice his son an example to others, when it has been listed as such in scripture and served that purpose down through history.

 

[GDL]

It's sad how often lexicons slip theological conclusions into their definitions of terms.

Completely agree. And it requires some effort at times to maintain awareness of this fact.

Some projects require much more work to discern the actual historical meanings, and some require going through however many times a word is used in our Text, in every context, and attempting to harmonize how God uses the word in question.

Sometimes Strong's is useful in assisting to determine how a word has been derived from a root, or has been somewhat altered by combining it with a preposition, etc., and then using this to go back into analyzing the Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

Firstly, thanks for the response.

Mind citing your source for "Justification = ..." It sounds theological vs. lexical.

And thanks for your response.

It's the definition of the word "justify."
From which Paul excludes all works (Ro 3:28, 4:5; Gal 2:16, 3:11-12; Eph 2:9; Ro 1:17, 3:21-22).

NKJ 1 Thess. 3:9-10 For what thanks can we render to God for you, for all the joy with which we rejoice for your sake before our God, 10 night and day praying exceedingly that we may see your face and perfect what is lacking in your faith?

Seems there is such a thing as an incomplete faith for someone who has come to faith.

Yes, but not an incomplete justification = declaration of "not guilty," given right-standing before God's Court--a permanent irrevocable state.

A few responses

- I've not said faith is a work. You must have misunderstood.
- The gift of faith is another discussion, I'd prefer to defer for now. We'd probably mostly agree, but maybe not on all referenced verses???
- Even assuming faith to be a gift, it is tested, which is how James begins his letter:

NKJ James 1:2-3 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.​

Agreed. . .faith is tested, but there is no "test" for justification--"not guilty," right standing before God's Court.

- Agree with your first statement.
- Agree that this is what Paul is quoting.
- There is righteousness according to law and righteousness that came separate from the law (Christ). Again agree with what I understand you to be saying.

- Agree that we must have Christ's righteousness credited to us from faith in what God commands us to believe.
- Should note here that our righteousness does not stop at credited righteousness: NKJ 1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous

Agreed. . .the justified will practice righteousness.

- This is one of the issues I mentioned re: being in theological boxes. You seem to be equating Justification, which I was discussing, with Salvation. The 2 words are not equal and do not mean the same thing.

That is correct.

But the box is Paul's. . .because all the justified are glorified (Ro 8:29-30).

- Paul is in fact talking about our entrance into God's Salvation.
- I think we agree that when we enter God's Salvation, we are justified from faith apart from works, and there is no boast on our part because this entrance is God's work into His Salvation. Even from there, our boast is always in Christ as everything we do in God's Salvation is founded on His work and involves His empowerment.
- My point is that James is not talking about our entrance into Salvation, but talking about being tested after we enter God's Salvation.

We aren't quite in agreement on "entrance into salvation" because
our "entrance" into salvation is salvation.
"Lexically," salvation is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on unbelievers at the Judgment.
You don't "enter" it. . .you're either in. . .or you're out. . .you don't "grow" into that escape.
Rather, you grow in sanctification.

- Still need your citation for the definition of justifaction.

Okay, it's above.

- I think James disagrees with you re: only 1 justification. I think those who canonized may also disagree with you. I see no disagreement between James and Paul.
- It seems we could get into disagreement re: permanency, so I'd prefer to set it aside for now as another discussion.
- What if I asked you if sanctification is exclusive to only referring to the growth & development of one who has already believed?

"Sanctify" = "set apart," a two-step transaction: 1) from sin, and 2) to God.

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

In 1Co 6:11, Paul's use of sanctified would be "set apart."

- If I'm correct in how I'm seeing James & Paul, then
1) when we first believed, and God credited Christ's righteous to us, and
2) we were thus first justified/declared righteous, and we were first sanctified, and washed, etc..., within God's Salvation Plan,
3) we then are trained and developed as His Children to maturity, and
4) along this course our faith is developed and completed through continued sanctification, and additional justifications as we are tested by God.

In Paul's meaning of justification, which excludes works (Ro 3:28, 4:5; Gal 2:16, 3:11-12; Eph 2:9; Ro 1:17, 3:21-22), "additional justifications" would not be a part of continued sanctification, which involves works.

- I know the Salvation/Justification > Sanctification > Glorification theological box. I've come out of it by studying the terminology of Scripture as it is actually used.

Good for you. . .I never had the "privilege" of being there.

- The problem with my analysis, or yours? No rudeness intended.

And no rudeness taken.

- I understand your points. I too was trained in theologies. I don't think James was speaking of the justification you're speaking of. I think the longer we remain in that theological box, the longer this alleged conflict between Paul & James remains. I've proposed part of what I see as the potential solution.

I agree. . .which means he was not speaking of the justification Paul was speaking of.

My understanding of justification comes from Paul (e.g., Ro 3:28, 4:5; Gal 2:16, 3:11-12; Eph 2:9), as I don't see James treating the meaning of the subject at all.

Keeping in mind that Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5), while James did not walk with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and receive instruction from him during that time.
I suspect James didn't believe in Jesus until after the resurrection, when Jesus couldn't be denied.
​

Rather than leave you to do the work to cite things, I'm going to provide the following. The Greek word here is "dikaioō" in case you don't read Greek. So, just pick up the English. I'm taking it from "justified" in the 1 Cor 6:11 verse I inserted above. You'll see that there is much more range in the meaning of the word than the theological definition you're presenting.

Thanks. . .and after perusal, it seems I am in accord with them, as shown.

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1aor. ἐδικαίωσα; pf. pass. δεδικαίωμαι; 1aor. pass. ἐδικαιώθην; 1fut. pass. δικαιωθήσομαι; (1) generally make right or just; (2) as behaving in a way expected of the one δίκαιος (righteous, just) obey God's requirements, live right, do right (RV 22.11); (3) as demonstrating that someone is δίκαιος vindicate, show to be right (LU 10.29); (4) as acknowledging that someone is just justify, vindicate (LU 7.29); (5) as a religious technical term; (a) of imputed righteousness, as God's judging and saving activity in relation to persons justify, declare righteous, put right with (himself) (RO 3.24); (b) experientially, of imparted righteousness as freedom from sin's power make free, release, set free; passive be set free (RO 6.7) Friberg Lexicon

δικαιόω
(a) to put right with 34.46
(b) show to be right 88.16
(c) acquit 56.34
(d) set free 37.138
(e) obey righteous commands 36.22
Louw-Nida Lexicon

δικαιόω, Ion. impf. δικαιεῦν: f. ώσω and ώσομαι: aor. i ἐδικαίωσαass., aor. i ἐδικαιώθην: (δίκαιος):
I. to set right: Pass., δικαιωθείς proved, tested, Aesch.
II. to hold or deem right, think fit, demand, c. inf., Hdt., etc.; inf. omitted, as οὕτω δικαιοῦν (sc. γενέσθαι) Id.:-to consent, δουλεύειν Id.; οὐ δ. to refuse, Thuc.:-c. acc. pers. et inf. to desire one to do, Hdt.
III. to do a man right or justice, to judge, i.e.,
1. to condemn, Thuc.: to chastise, punish, Hdt.
2. to deem righteous, justify, N.T. Hence δικαίωμα
Liddell Scott Lexicon

δικαιόω fut. δικαιώσω; 1 aor. ἐδικαίωσα. Pass.: 1 fut. δικαιωθήσομαι; 1 aor. ἐδικαιώθην, subj. δικαιωθῶ, ptc. δικαιωθείς; pf. δεδικαίωμαι Ro 6:7; 1 Cor 4:4; ptc. δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14 (Soph., Hdt.; Aristot., EN 1136a; et al.; pap, LXX; En 102:10; TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34]; Test12Patr; ApcSed, 14:8 p. 136, 15 Ja.; Jos., Ant. 17, 206; Just.; Ath., R. 53, 1; 65, 14) to practice δικαιοσύνη.

1.to take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause τινά (Polyb. 3, 31, 9 ὑμᾶς δὲ αὐτοὺς … δικαιώσεσθε ‘you will (find it necessary to) take up your own cause’ = you will sit in judgment on yourselves; Cass. Dio 48, 46 ‘Antony was not taking Caesar’s side’ in the matter; 2 Km 15:4; Ps 81:3) δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον take up the cause of an upright pers. 1 Cl 16:12 (Is 53:11); τινί χήρᾳ (χήραν v.l.) 8:4 (Is 1:17 ‘take up the cause of the widow’).

2. to render a favorable verdict, vindicate.

a. as activity of humans justify, vindicate, treat as just (Appian, Liby. 17 §70; Gen 44:16; Sir 10:29; 13:22; 23:11 al.) θέλων δ. ἑαυτόν wishing to justify himself Lk 10:29; δ. ἑαυτὸν ἐνώπιόν τινος j. oneself before someone=‘you try to make out a good case for yourselves before the public’ 16:15 (δ. ἐαυτόν as En 102:10; but s. JJeremias, ZNW 38, ’39, 117f [against him SAalen, NTS 13, ’67, 1ff]). ὁ δικαιούμενός μοι the one who vindicates himself before (or against) me B 6:1 (cp. Is 50:8). τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν βαπτισθέντες tax-collectors affirmed God’s uprightness and got baptized i.e. by ruling in God’s favor they admitted that they were in the wrong and took a new direction (opp. τὴν βουλὴν τ. θεοῦ ἀθετεῖν) Lk 7:29 (cp. PsSol 2:15; 3:5; 8:7, 23; 9:2).

b. of experience or activity of transcendent figures, esp. in relation to humans

α. of wisdom ἐδικαιώθη ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς is vindicated by her children (on δικ. ἀπό cp. Is 45:25. S. also Appian, Basil. 8: δικαιόω=consider someth. just or correct) Lk 7:35; also ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς Mt 11:19 (v.l. τέκνων). On this saying s. DVölter, NThT 8, 1919, 22-42; JBover, Biblica 6, 1925, 323-25; 463-65; M-JLagrange, ibid. 461-63. Of an angel Hm 5, 1, 7.

β. of God be found in the right, be free of charges (cp. TestAbr A 13 p. 93, 14 [Stone p. 34] ‘be vindicated’ in a trial by fire) Mt 12:37 (opp. καταδικάζειν). δεδικαιωμένος Lk 18:14; GJs 5:1; δεδικαιωμένη (Salome) 20:4 (not pap). Ac 13:39 (but s. 3 below); Rv 22:11 v.l; Dg 5:14.—Paul, who has influenced later wr. (cp. Iren. 3, 18, 7 [Harv. II 102, 2f]), uses the word almost exclusively of God’s judgment. As affirmative verdict Ro 2:13. Esp. of pers. δικαιοῦσθαι be acquitted, be pronounced and treated as righteous and thereby become δίκαιος, receive the divine gift of δικαιοσύνη through faith in Christ Jesus and apart from νόμος as a basis for evaluation (MSeifrid, Justification by Faith—The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme ’92) 3:20 (Ps 142:2), 24, 28; 4:2; 5:1, 9; 1 Cor 4:4; Gal 2:16f (Ps 142:2); 3:11, 24; 5:4; Tit 3:7; Phil 3:12 v.l.; B 4:10; 15:7; IPhld 8:2; Dg 9:4; (w. ἁγιάζεσθαι) Hv 3, 9, 1. οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι I am not justified by this (after 1 Cor 4:4) IRo 5:1. ἵνα δικαιωθῇ σου ἡ σάρξ that your flesh (as the sinful part) may be acquitted Hs 5, 7, 1; δ. ἔργοις by (on the basis of) works, by what one does 1 Cl 30:3; cp. Js 2:21, 24f e;;ργον 1a and πίστις 2dδ); δι᾽ ἐαυτῶν δ. by oneself=as a result of one’s own accomplishments 1 Cl 32:4. (cp. κατὰ νόμον Hippol., Ref. 7, 34, 1).—Since Paul views God’s justifying action in close connection with the power of Christ’s resurrection, there is sometimes no clear distinction between the justifying action of acquittal and the gift of new life through the Holy Spirit as God’s activity in promoting uprightness in believers. Passages of this nature include Ro 3:26, 30; 4:5 (on δικαιοῦν τὸν ἀσεβῆ cp. the warning against accepting δῶρα to arrange acquittal Ex 23:7 and Is 5:23; δικαιούμενοι δωρεάν Ro 3:24 is therefore all the more pointed); 8:30, 33 (Is 50:8); Gal 3:8; Dg 9:5. For the view (held since Chrysostom) that δ. in these and other pass. means ‘make upright’ s. Goodsp., Probs. 143-46, JBL 73, ’54, 86-91.

3. to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure (the act. Ps 72:13) in our lit. pass. δικαιοῦμαι be set free, made pure ἀπό from (Sir 26:29; TestSim 6:1, both δικ. ἀπὸ [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας) ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ἐν νόμω Μωϋσέως δικαιωθῆναι from everything fr. which you could not be freed by the law of Moses Ac 13:38; cp. vs. 39. ὁ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τ. ἁμαρτίας the one who died is freed fr. sin Ro 6:7 (s. KKuhn, ZNW 30, ’31, 305-10; EKlaar, ibid. 59, ’68, 131-34). In the context of 1 Cor 6:11 ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.—In the language of the mystery religions (Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 258ff) δικαιοῦσθαι refers to a radical inner change which the initiate experiences (Herm. Wr. 13, 9 χωρὶς γὰρ κρίσεως ἰδὲ πῶς τὴν ἀδικίαν ἐξήλασεν. ἐδικαιώθημεν, ὦ τέκνον, ἀδικίας ἀπούσης) and approaches the sense ‘become deified’. Some are inclined to find in 1 Ti 3:16 a similar use; but see under 4.

4. to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right, pass. of God is proved to be right Ro 3:4; 1 Cl 18:4 (both Ps 50:6). Of Christ 1 Ti 3:16.—Lit. s. on δικαιοσύνη 3c.—HRosman, Iustificare (δικαιοῦν) est verbum causativum: Verbum Domini 21, ’41, 144-47; NWatson, Δικ. in the LXX, JBL 79, ’60, 255-66; CCosgrove, JBL 106, ’87, 653—70.—DELG s.v. δίκη. M-M. EDNT. TW. Spicq.
BDAG Lexicon

 

[hedrick]

I'd be interested in your post-considered thoughts re: "justification." Is there really just one as many to most say? Or does it look like there are at least 2 per Paul & James?

Many words have a range of meanings. It's quite possible that Paul and James used it differently. Certainly the Protestant and Catholic traditions use it differently.

However we know from Paul's letters that Paul and James in fact disagreed. Thus it's quite reasonable to see James as specifically objecting to Paul, or more likely, someone operating in James' tradition objecting to how some of Paul's followers understood (or misunderstood) what Paul said.

 

[GDL]

I am surprised you do not consider Abrahams faith in connection to his willingness to sacrifice his son an example to others, when it has been listed as such in scripture and served that purpose down through history

I do certainly know and consider such things based, not only because the record has been written & preserved for us, but also based upon Scripture like the following. I just don't think such consideration alters the meaning of justification and how it's being used by James. In fact I think what God via James and Paul are making us aware of is there is more than one important concept of justification and per James we should be aware of how important our testing is and how God is dealing with it in a legal context. It makes me think back to Job.

NKJ Romans 4:23-25 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Your thoughts on justification in James vs. Paul?

 

[GDL]

It's the definition of the word "justify."

It's very obviously a theological interpretation of how the word is used in a context. I think I've provided sufficient sources to show it is not the definition of the word. And you're leaving Paul & James in disagreement. I think it's clear they are not in disagreement.

Yes, but not an incomplete justification = declaration of "not guilty," given right-standing before God's Court

Agree re: not incomplete justification. In one courtroom situation 1 declaration can be sufficient. But then different matters (tests/trials) can entered into in which another declaration becomes necessary. You're mixing the 2 together by saying there is only one justification (declaration of righteousness). I don't think James or Paul agree.

Agreed. . .faith is tested, but there is no "test" for justification

Agreement is good! There is a declaration of righteousness/conformity to God's will in handling a test as God desires. Abraham's Faith + Works were determined by God to be righteous. I could push your last clause due to its wording, but I think your intended meaning is clear.

As another poster pointed out, God commanded Abraham to do something illegal. God tested his obedience, which is tantamount to his faith. There is a lot of inference in here re: resurrection and prefiguring what God would do with His Son. God stopped Abraham from committing lawlessness. He later allowed allowed others to commit lawlessness against His Son.

Agreed. . .the justified will practice righteousness

This too is a theological assertion some to many disagree with. And it's another discussion similar to permanency, if you don't mind.

We aren't quite in agreement on "entrance into salvation" because
our "entrance" into salvation is salvation.
"Lexically," salvation is from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) on unbelievers at the Judgment.
You don't "enter" it. . .you're either in. . .or you're out. . .you don't "grow" into that escape.
Rather, you grow in sanctification.

- First sentence: I knew this already. Agreed we aren't in agreement. Salvation is another discussion.
- Salvation lexically is not Rom5:9. Salvation contextually in Romans is Rom5:9.
- I think if you read your 3rd sentence you should see a mistake. If we at one time were not saved, and at a later time are "in" Salvation, then we entered into Salvation.
- As I pointed out with Scripture, we are also sanctified/set apart when we were first saved. Then we are further sanctified as we are raised to maturity.

In 1Co 6:11, Paul's use of sanctified would be "set apart."

- That's basically what the word means lexically. Agreed.

In Paul's meaning of justification, which excludes works (Ro 3:28, 4:5; Gal 2:16, 3:11-12; Eph 2:9; Ro 1:17, 3:21-22), "additional justifications" would not be a part of continued sanctification, which involves works.

- Are you agreeing that there are additional justifications? I'm saying this is what James is saying. And they are not the justification Paul is talking about. The 1Cor6 verse I gave you says Christians were washed, sanctified, justified. I think we agree that there is also the process of being sanctified. During this [experiential] sanctification our faith is tested. James seems clearly to be saying there is/are justification(s) that take place during this process.

Good for you. . .I never had the "privilege" of being there.

With respect, I think you're partially therein by the way you use terms like justification, salvation and sanctification. If we drop the glorification component for the moment, have you not said/do you not think Justification and Salvation are essentially the same and that Sanctification follows?

I agree. . .which means he was not speaking of the justification Paul was speaking of.

Agreed. This has been my point.

My understanding of justification comes from Paul (e.g., Ro 3:28, 4:5; Gal 2:16, 3:11-12; Eph 2:9), as I don't see James treating the meaning of the subject at all.

But our understanding should come from all the Text. I see you importing Pauline theology into the lexical meaning of a fairly simple legal word and calling that theological meaning the definition. But it's not the definition. It's simply the justification event Paul is dealing with.

James doesn't have to deal with the meaning of the word. The word has its meaning. James is simply applying that meaning to a different event than Paul.

Thanks. . .and after perusal, it seems I am in accord with them, as shown.

And I see you as being in selective accord. I was not selective in what I supplied (other than limiting the number of sources supplied). I know your Pauline application was included, but that source specifically indicates it to be Pauline usage. The majority of the lexical information would not & does not specifically and automatically support Paul's contextual usage. Some would in fact support James.

As Fervent posted a bit above here, it's sad that theology is inserted into lexicons. But this is the condition of some of our lexical tools as they progress in development.

At the end of all this, the word carries meaning used by both Paul and James in different contexts and applications. I see no disagreement between the two.

As the lexicons pointed out, there are uses in our Text in other contexts. Context once again being key.

 

[GDL]

However we know from Paul's letters that Paul and James in fact disagreed.

I'd need specifics to make sure we agree, but disagreement in one area does not automatically mean disagreement in others, such as the subject of justification. Agree?

 

[Fervent]

Completely agree. And it requires some effort at times to maintain awareness of this fact.

Some projects require much more work to discern the actual historical meanings, and some require going through however many times a word is used in our Text, in every context, and attempting to harmonize how God uses the word in question.

Sometimes Strong's is useful in assisting to determine how a word has been derived from a root, or has been somewhat altered by combining it with a preposition, etc., and then using this to go back into analyzing the Scripture.

One among many places implicit biases creep in that we've got to consciously avoid, yet often fail to.

It seems to me a lot of the supposed conflict between James and what Paul wrote in Romans and Galatians is a matter of failure to allow the ambiguities to be filled with literary context and instead filling them with dogmatics. The chapter-verse format of the Bible is both a blessing and a curse when it comes to study since it gives an easy index, but can give a false impression about the internal dependencies.

 

[misput]

I do certainly know and consider such things based, not only because the record has been written & preserved for us, but also based upon Scripture like the following. I just don't think such consideration alters the meaning of justification and how it's being used by James. In fact I think what God via James and Paul are making us aware of is there is more than one important concept of justification and per James we should be aware of how important our testing is and how God is dealing with it in a legal context. It makes me think back to Job.

NKJ Romans 4:23-25 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Your thoughts on justification in James vs. Paul?

I was taught early on, justification means "just as if I didn't sin". I am not sure we can become more righteous, sanctified or saved but I suppose we could see it as a one time action that produces growth for the rest of our days. I do agree we have trials temptations and tribulations, Jesus explicitly said we do but I doubt that Paul and James see justification differently.

 

[Fervent]

And I see you as being in selective accord. I was not selective in what I supplied (other than limiting the number of sources supplied). I know your Pauline application was included, but that source specifically indicates it to be Pauline usage. The majority of the lexical information would not & does not specifically and automatically support Paul's contextual usage. Some would in fact support James.

Even assigning it a Pauline distinctive is conclusionary rather than lexically useful. The idea that Paul was setting out to create a dogmatically precise theological understanding is itself a question that needs to be answered by looking at the text, and to at least some degree is a significant enough consideration to determine whether the understanding is an essential of the faith or something where we can have vibrant theological disagreements.

 

[GDL]

or more likely, someone operating in James' tradition objecting to how some of Paul's followers understood (or misunderstood) what Paul said.

Again, the info I have is that James wrote first. Maybe meaningful, maybe not.

But I see no reason for Paul to begin Rom4 with language of assumption for the sake of argument, then be dealing specifically with the assumption Abraham was justified by works. This is almost precisely what James wrote. I fully acknowledge that Paul does not cite James. I simply see the grammatical structure & content of discussion to be very interesting, especially in light of what this issue has caused or been involved with through the centuries all the way back to the issue of canonicity as has been pointed out by another poster. Actually all the way back to the times these documents were written.

 

[GDL]

Even assigning it a Pauline distinctive is conclusionary rather than lexically useful. The idea that Paul was setting out to create a dogmatically precise theological understanding is itself a question that needs to be answered by looking at the text, and to at least some degree is a significant enough consideration to determine whether the understanding is an essential of the faith or something where we can have vibrant theological disagreements.

Good comments.

Based upon this thread and more importantly upon the divide over the various views of faith + works, I view it as extremely important. It's the divide in the theological content of the video that began this thread and caused the expressed anger of MacArthur and the controlled response of Hanegraff. It's the Sole Fide part of the Reformation.

I find the divides over such things as tragic. Faith + Works is a major divide. The divides speak of an infancy of the Body of Christ.

NKJ Ephesians 4:10-16 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

 

[GDL]

I was taught early on, justification means "just as if I didn't sin".

This is a common teaching in many churches.

I doubt that Paul and James see justification differently.

Agreed. I don't think they do. I just see them as dealing with different contexts.

 

[Fervent]

Good comments.

Based upon this thread and more importantly upon the divide over the various views of faith + works, I view it as extremely important. It's the divide in the theological content of the video that began this thread and caused the expressed anger of MacArthur and the controlled response of Hanegraff. It's the Sole Fide part of the Reformation.

I find the divides over such things as tragic. Faith + Works is a major divide. The divides speak of an infancy of the Body of Christ.

NKJ Ephesians 4:10-16 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

It's definitely a major question and issue for divide, sometimes the divide is real and others its more a matter of semantics creating division. As some Catholics have noted in this thread there are understandings of Sola Fide they are in agreement with, as I'm sure many Orthodox would be as well. For Evangelicals/protestants there's a bit of an instability because there's a constant vigilance for works-based salvations and often see works where there are none being forwarded.

It's a question that I believe can warrant division, but often the dividing lines are overly rigid and divisions come about long before either side has truly transgressed. And part of it is because embracing justification by faith serves as a litmus test in many ways for whether someone is authentically Christian in a lot of circles and what that means often varies from confession to confession.

 

[GDL]

For Evangelicals/protestants there's a bit of an instability because there's a constant vigilance for works-based salvations and often see works where there are none being forwarded.

Re: my highlights to your quoted statement: Something I've observed and said many times. The Faith + Works pendulum has been swung way too wide. "constant vigilance" is another good comment. Thanks!

 

[Saint Steven]

We also need to hone in on exactly what the focus is for this thread? Is it the disagreement between both MacArthur and Hanegraaf, or is it something else? So far, all I've seen folks do in this thread is vie in piecemeal fashion for their own favorite interpretive position (or denomination).

Nearly 30 pages in four days. Nearly 6k views and 575 replies.

From my perspective it's been a huge success. I'm satisfied with what we have seen here. There were a lot of very healthy discussions and very little trouble. Thanks to everyone for being so well behaved. - lol

I haven't caught up with all the recent messages here. (two pages worth) That's my next step.

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus speaks of not pulling out the tares from the wheat field. Did he mean that we are to tolerate everything in the successors to the apostles? Some would say so. I don't know. I don't think so.

Yes, biblical church discipline needs to happen with both laity and clergy.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know if God has created all of the tracks. I think much of that is us.

Just to be clear, I was only referring to the tracks that God has laid.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the mean time Catholics accept Orthodox baptisms and almost every Protestant baptism. We do recognize you guys as Christians. Every evangelical is recognized as a Christian by the Catholic Church. All we have to do is get the evangelicals to accept each other's baptisms and broaden that out a bit and we are able to begin. It won't be easy and I am a pessimist on that sort of thing.

Yes, Protestants have been quite resistant to accepting Catholics as fellow Christians. The OP video really highlights that sentiment. Obviously, I don't agree with the majority Protestant position on that.