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.
I'm making no attempt to reconcile James with Paul.
If that is disagreement, then you must interpret James to agree with Paul who received his revelation from Jesus Christ
personally in the third heaven ((2Co 12:1-5). James was not taught by Jesus.
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.
1) Please Biblically demonstrate where more than one justification (declaration of "not guilty," right standing before God by faith)
is taught in the NT.
You're mixing the 2 together by saying there is only one justification (declaration of righteousness). I don't think James or Paul agree.
You are not prosecuting Ro 8:29-30, where Paul states that
all the
justified are
glorified.
The unsaved are not glorified.
Where do we find in the NT that God changes his mind about his justification of anyone through faith?
2) Would you please Biblically demonstrate this assertion.
Agreement is good! There is a declaration of righteousness/conformity to God's will in handling a test as God desires.
Not in the NT of
my Bible.
Abraham's Faith + Works were determined by God to be righteous.
No, God
credited righteousness to Abraham because Abraham
believed the promise.
3) Please Biblically demonstrate that assertion from the NT.
You are ignoring Paul's clear explanation and distinction between works and faith regarding Abraham in Ro 4:1-5.
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.
God purposed two things in the test of Abraham:
1) to
teach Abraham to love the Giver more than the gift (Isaac), and
2) to pre-figure,
fore-shadow, in the
substitution of the ram, the coming some 2,000 years down the road of substitutionary atonement for the sin of the sons of God.
This too is a theological assertion some to many disagree with. And it's another discussion similar to permanency, if you don't mind.
It's the
Biblical conclusion from
"all the justified are glorified (saved)."
- 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.
Salvation, both
lexically (words, language) and
contextually,
is from the wrath of God in Ro 5:9
- 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.
Our "entrance into salvation" (
your terminoloogy)
is salvation (NT terminology).
The NT does not present an "entering into salvation," it presents only "salvation" (from the wrath of God, Ro 5:9).
- 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.
Yes, when we were first saved, we were set apart
from sin.
Sanctification is then growth in being set apart
to God.
- That's basically what the word means lexically. Agreed.
- Are you agreeing that there are additional justifications? I'm saying this is what James is saying.
I am not agreeing that there are additional justifications, because it is found nowhere in Paul's revelation from Jesus Christ
personally in the third heaven (1Co 12:1-5) after Jesus' resurrection.
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.
James may well be saying such, and if he is, he is in disagreement with Paul, who received his revelation from Jesus Christ (2Co 12:1-5), which James did not.
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 "use terms like justification, salvation and sanctification" the way Paul uses them, who (again) received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally, which James did not.
If we "drop the glorification component" we drop that which
shows the meaning of "justified."
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 the justification event Paul is dealing with.
"Pauline theology" from Jesus Christ personally
is "the lexical meaning" of NT words like justification, salvation, sanctification, righteousness, faith, works, etc.
My understanding comes from all the text, until James is in conflict with it--the rest of the entire Bible never being in conflict with Paul, correctly understood. At that point, my understanding is taken from Paul for the reason previously given; i.e., the
source of his revelation.
James doesn't not 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.
His application is contrary to the revelation given to Paul by Jesus.
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.
"Pauline usage" thereby means it is the NT meaning Paul
received in his revelation from Jesus Christ
personally.
And that "the lexical information. . .does not specifically. . .support Paul's contextual usage" is supposed to matter why? . .when
Paul's usage comes from
Jesus Christ personally?
Your issue is with Paul, not me. . .and the lexicon agrees above.
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.
Or is it sad that lexicons and hermeneutics are inserted into NT contextual meaning?
The lexicons are in
agreement that it
is Paul's usage. . .Paul, the one who received his revelation from Jesus Christ
personally in the third heaven (2Co 12:1-5).
Does not
Paul's usage of words--justification, salvation, sanctification, righteousness, faith, works, etc.--
make it the NT meaning of those words, which then settles what the truth of it all is?