- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,683
- 8,019
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
The definition of "Justification"
- Thread starter Godlovesmetwo
- Start date
fhansen
Oldbie
Well, for many of us the notion that a saint can be a sinner practically while a saint positionally is a bit of double-think, even while acknowledging that the heaven-bound elect will almost assuredly struggle with sin themselves until the end. Also, not all agree that the dividing line between the old man and the new is always so clearly and cleanly defined as we might prefer to believe. The Parable of the Good Samaritan might shed some light on this, as well as The Parable of the Two Sons:
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ “ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” Matt 21:28-31
In any case what we actually do most definitely counts, as opposed to what we merely say. And what non-believers do, if looked at objectively I believe, may be born of or motivated by genuine goodwill. Perhaps, similar to the son who first said “no”, there can be an unarticulated faith present in those actions.
Upvote
0
Water is the human spirit is deduced from pattern recognition and making connections. John emphasised that Christ has come in the flesh (i.e. human form) [1 Jn 4:2). And he then expanded: Jesus came by water and blood (1 Jn 5:6). And we know that man is body and spirit (1 Cor 6:12, 1 Thess 5:23, James 2:26). Flesh and blood is associated with the body, leaving water to be the human spirit.
A chaos system is a system that is confusing or appears confusing, but beneath the confusion is an underlying deterministic order. It cannot be denied that the Bible has confused many and Christianity is in chaos. Understanding chaos will help us understand where problems lie, and then apply the right strategy to study the Bible. Treatment cannot start until one acknowledges that there is a problem.
Upvote
0
6. Exegetical Commentary on John 3
Quote
3:10 There is irony in Jesus’ question here: “you are the teacher of Israel (a spiritual leader) and don’t know these things?”
This carries the implication (at least) that Nicodemus had enough information at his disposal from the Old Testament Scriptures to have understood Jesus’ statements about the necessity of being born from above by the regenerating work of the Spirit.
When we ask what passages Nicodemus might have known which would have given him insight into Jesus’ words, we could return to we could return to Isa 44:3-5 and Ezek 37:9-10. But even more astounding is the passage proposed by Z. C. Hodges as the “seed-bed” for the ideas in Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus: Prov 30:4-5
66
“Who has ascended into heaven, and descended [John 3:13]? Who has gathered the wind [John 3:5, 8] in his fists? Who has wrapped the waters [John 3:5] in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, or his Son’s name [John 3:15-16]? Surely you know! Every word of God is tested; he is a shield to those who put their trust in him [John 3:15-16].”
Upvote
0
Richard FC
Member
Upvote
0
Richard FC
Member
Mark Kennedy's post is surely coming from one point of view and one that favors a Catholic perspective more than Protestant. It would be unfair to describe it as 'salvation by justification and sanctification' but it does depart significantly from a widely held position that salvation is by faith of the type that issues in love of God and man. There are several issues here
1. 'Justification' is the Vulgate's rendering of the 'dikaios' family of Greek words. 'Justification' adds the idea of God doing something ('facio') and 'iustitia' has arguably more of a moral standing before the law, than 'dikaios' which describes God's new perspective towards us (ie relational not rule-based)
2. 'Sanctification' is also essentially a non-moral term meaning set aside for God's purpose. Balaam's ass was indeed 'sanctified' as indeed was Cyrus.
3. 'Holy' (as in God is holy') also essentially means 'other' rather than morally perfect. Yes, God is morally perfect but not by virtue of Him measuring up to any moral standard external to Him. We must therefore be careful not to use this external moral standard by which to measure our 'holiness' or 'godliness'. We so easily set aside relationship with God to focus on morality. If you want to think of morality, we can say that we have intimacy with God (through the Cross) and then we are transformed increasingly into His likeness (moral), but not that we must be increasingly transformed if we are to have increasing intimacy
4. Once the focus on morality took hold post-Augustine, then it was obvious that there was a discontinuity between our moral imperfections when we die and the moral perfection we need in heaven. Purgatory was a clever idea to aid this transition, the implication being that God cannot achieve what He wants through His discipline of us in this life. Don't worry - Protestants make an equal mess of the moral transition needed!
5. If I am reading Mark correctly, his view is that we start 100% bad (through original sin?) but that, on conversion or some would say baptism, we start to grow a righteousness so that the proportion changes through 50:50 until either death or post-purgatory when we are now 100% good/moral/holy etc. The effect of this means that when we reach the pearly gates, we would be entitled to say 'I am now 100% holy and deserve to be let in'. What has subtly taken place is a confusion of what Paul calls our righteousness in Christ, and the righteousness of the law. (Luther's view of course was that we remain 'semper iustus semper peccator').
6. The problem stems from what we mean by 'forgiveness of sins' and, more importantly, what exactly did the cross achieve. Most but not all substitutionary theories of the atonement (putting us right with God) say that God forgives and punishes, although we as men are now called to forgive without punishing/avenging. If you forgive first, then there is no need for punishment. I suppose you can argue that if you punish first, then you can still forgive thereafter.
7. The idea of punishing first then forgiving was given to us by Anselm 800 years ago in the form of the Satisfaction theory of Atonement which says that God must punish to satisfy His honor and maintain the realization within the cosmos that He did not like sin; 'all hell might otherwise break loose'.
8. Anselm's theory was itself a response to the Ransom theory of Atonement which gave too much dualistic status to Satan. It moved the focus from God dealing with Satan to God dealing with His honor. The specifically Penal substitution theory of Atonement sought to refine Anselm's Satisfaction theory by making not sin but the sinner the object of God's wrath. Whether or not this was Calvin's position, it certainly became the position of subsequent Calvinist, Puritan, Reformed, and Presbyterian thinking. (Interestingly, although Luther focused on the legal or forensic element of justification, this was in large part chosen as a monergistic analogy to counter the contemporary synergistic position of the Catholic church. But the intention was to stress the positive and freeing work of God, rather than a negative retributive requirement of the law.
9. As an aside we can next add in Abelard's Moral Influence theory of 'Atonement' which in fact removes atonement from the equation and says that the purpose of the Cross and Jesus' obedient life was, as a moral example, to show man how to live the moral life. This is known as the subjective or anthropocentric theory since
1. 'Justification' is the Vulgate's rendering of the 'dikaios' family of Greek words. 'Justification' adds the idea of God doing something ('facio') and 'iustitia' has arguably more of a moral standing before the law, than 'dikaios' which describes God's new perspective towards us (ie relational not rule-based)
2. 'Sanctification' is also essentially a non-moral term meaning set aside for God's purpose. Balaam's ass was indeed 'sanctified' as indeed was Cyrus.
3. 'Holy' (as in God is holy') also essentially means 'other' rather than morally perfect. Yes, God is morally perfect but not by virtue of Him measuring up to any moral standard external to Him. We must therefore be careful not to use this external moral standard by which to measure our 'holiness' or 'godliness'. We so easily set aside relationship with God to focus on morality. If you want to think of morality, we can say that we have intimacy with God (through the Cross) and then we are transformed increasingly into His likeness (moral), but not that we must be increasingly transformed if we are to have increasing intimacy
4. Once the focus on morality took hold post-Augustine, then it was obvious that there was a discontinuity between our moral imperfections when we die and the moral perfection we need in heaven. Purgatory was a clever idea to aid this transition, the implication being that God cannot achieve what He wants through His discipline of us in this life. Don't worry - Protestants make an equal mess of the moral transition needed!
5. If I am reading Mark correctly, his view is that we start 100% bad (through original sin?) but that, on conversion or some would say baptism, we start to grow a righteousness so that the proportion changes through 50:50 until either death or post-purgatory when we are now 100% good/moral/holy etc. The effect of this means that when we reach the pearly gates, we would be entitled to say 'I am now 100% holy and deserve to be let in'. What has subtly taken place is a confusion of what Paul calls our righteousness in Christ, and the righteousness of the law. (Luther's view of course was that we remain 'semper iustus semper peccator').
6. The problem stems from what we mean by 'forgiveness of sins' and, more importantly, what exactly did the cross achieve. Most but not all substitutionary theories of the atonement (putting us right with God) say that God forgives and punishes, although we as men are now called to forgive without punishing/avenging. If you forgive first, then there is no need for punishment. I suppose you can argue that if you punish first, then you can still forgive thereafter.
7. The idea of punishing first then forgiving was given to us by Anselm 800 years ago in the form of the Satisfaction theory of Atonement which says that God must punish to satisfy His honor and maintain the realization within the cosmos that He did not like sin; 'all hell might otherwise break loose'.
8. Anselm's theory was itself a response to the Ransom theory of Atonement which gave too much dualistic status to Satan. It moved the focus from God dealing with Satan to God dealing with His honor. The specifically Penal substitution theory of Atonement sought to refine Anselm's Satisfaction theory by making not sin but the sinner the object of God's wrath. Whether or not this was Calvin's position, it certainly became the position of subsequent Calvinist, Puritan, Reformed, and Presbyterian thinking. (Interestingly, although Luther focused on the legal or forensic element of justification, this was in large part chosen as a monergistic analogy to counter the contemporary synergistic position of the Catholic church. But the intention was to stress the positive and freeing work of God, rather than a negative retributive requirement of the law.
9. As an aside we can next add in Abelard's Moral Influence theory of 'Atonement' which in fact removes atonement from the equation and says that the purpose of the Cross and Jesus' obedient life was, as a moral example, to show man how to live the moral life. This is known as the subjective or anthropocentric theory since
Upvote
0
Richard FC
Member
Apologies, my post above cut off - picking up from paragraph 9
9. We can next address in Abelard's Moral Influence theory of 'Atonement' which in fact removes atonement from the equation and says that the purpose of the Cross and Jesus' obedient life was, as a moral example, to show man how to live the moral life. This is known as the subjective or anthropocentric theory its purpose is to change man, not anything external to man; we are 'moved' and changed as we behold His life. There is much of this around but it can sit alongside other theories
10. Finally we must come to the Christus Victor theory of Atonement which seems to have been the earliest theory, and dominant in the early church and subsequent centuries (not withstanding attempts by some Protestants to date Penal Substitution to the earliest times). The other theories show the cross primarily as God dealing with Satan (Ransom theory), His honor/the cosmos (Satisfaction theory), His wrath against man (Penal theory), His sanctification/transformation of man, and now His victory over the consequences of sin, ie Death and Satan. This theory has been gaining support with some new exegesis - eg 'the wages of sin is death' is not the penalty of sin but the obvious consequence of sin being death - how can there be any life away from the One who is Life. Christ enters into this 'hellhole' and bursts free, leading captives with Him.
11. A key Penal theory passage, Is 53, perhaps needs to be read more closely more in line with Peter's pentecost address
Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men (not by God)...; and as one from whom men (not God) hide their faces he was despised (by us), and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we (not God) esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (yes, this is substitution, but not penal - this substitution is needed so that Satan must allow Him entry to hell, and that we, who are in hell, dead in our trepasses and sin, might be set free)
Isa 53:8 By (man's) oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation [(who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, [and] stricken for the transgression of my people)} (v9), they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him (parallel to Peter at Pentecost); he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt (not as straightforward as it looks - have you ever noticed that Jesus did not die on the Day of Atonement?), he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
9. We can next address in Abelard's Moral Influence theory of 'Atonement' which in fact removes atonement from the equation and says that the purpose of the Cross and Jesus' obedient life was, as a moral example, to show man how to live the moral life. This is known as the subjective or anthropocentric theory its purpose is to change man, not anything external to man; we are 'moved' and changed as we behold His life. There is much of this around but it can sit alongside other theories
10. Finally we must come to the Christus Victor theory of Atonement which seems to have been the earliest theory, and dominant in the early church and subsequent centuries (not withstanding attempts by some Protestants to date Penal Substitution to the earliest times). The other theories show the cross primarily as God dealing with Satan (Ransom theory), His honor/the cosmos (Satisfaction theory), His wrath against man (Penal theory), His sanctification/transformation of man, and now His victory over the consequences of sin, ie Death and Satan. This theory has been gaining support with some new exegesis - eg 'the wages of sin is death' is not the penalty of sin but the obvious consequence of sin being death - how can there be any life away from the One who is Life. Christ enters into this 'hellhole' and bursts free, leading captives with Him.
11. A key Penal theory passage, Is 53, perhaps needs to be read more closely more in line with Peter's pentecost address
Isa 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men (not by God)...; and as one from whom men (not God) hide their faces he was despised (by us), and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we (not God) esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all (yes, this is substitution, but not penal - this substitution is needed so that Satan must allow Him entry to hell, and that we, who are in hell, dead in our trepasses and sin, might be set free)
Isa 53:8 By (man's) oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation [(who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, [and] stricken for the transgression of my people)} (v9), they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him (parallel to Peter at Pentecost); he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt (not as straightforward as it looks - have you ever noticed that Jesus did not die on the Day of Atonement?), he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Upvote
0
PeaceJoyLove
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2017
- 1,504
- 1,145
- 62
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
It is the Son who reveals the son that we are IN Christ and makes known the Truth of "justification" and "new coveanant".
Scripture tell us "few there be that find it"...this justified life and truly entering into that new covenant...which has to do with the percentage who truly have gained understanding...which comes down to perception of where we are in the process (from where we are 'seeing'). One way brings confusion, the other enlightenment by the Spirit.
Upvote
0
Richard FC
Member
bettercallpaul said: ↑
What percentage of Christians understand the full meanings of concepts like "justification" and "new covenant"?
(one reply: It is the Son who reveals the son that we are IN Christ and makes known the Truth of "justification" and "new coveanant". Scripture tell us "few there be that find it"...this justified life and truly entering into that new covenant...)
Interesting question but I cannot agree with the reply which surely makes knowledge the path to salvation in an almost idolatrous or gnostic way. Almost all Christians know nothing of justification or covenant, but it does not matter. What matters is that God has, in His mercy, given them a simple 'knowledge' of Him, known through the eyes of faith not, as is our wont, through analysis by our mind.
'Knowledge' is of a Person not of the principles as to how God rescues man. The latter can increase the joy of one's salvation, but nothing exceeds the knowledge of God in the form of person-to-Person in Christ which indeed brings salvation.
This confusion comes more to the fore in differing understandings of predestination. For Catholics, 'foreknowledge' is God peering down the telescope of time and seeing what a man will choose of his own autonomous choice (and then predestining him according to that choice). God is reactive, not proactive. Protestants understand 'knowledge' to equate to a man 'knowing' his wife intimately. God's 'foreknowledge' of a man is the same as to say that man is part of the elect. Again it is relational; all is relational
What percentage of Christians understand the full meanings of concepts like "justification" and "new covenant"?
(one reply: It is the Son who reveals the son that we are IN Christ and makes known the Truth of "justification" and "new coveanant". Scripture tell us "few there be that find it"...this justified life and truly entering into that new covenant...)
Interesting question but I cannot agree with the reply which surely makes knowledge the path to salvation in an almost idolatrous or gnostic way. Almost all Christians know nothing of justification or covenant, but it does not matter. What matters is that God has, in His mercy, given them a simple 'knowledge' of Him, known through the eyes of faith not, as is our wont, through analysis by our mind.
'Knowledge' is of a Person not of the principles as to how God rescues man. The latter can increase the joy of one's salvation, but nothing exceeds the knowledge of God in the form of person-to-Person in Christ which indeed brings salvation.
This confusion comes more to the fore in differing understandings of predestination. For Catholics, 'foreknowledge' is God peering down the telescope of time and seeing what a man will choose of his own autonomous choice (and then predestining him according to that choice). God is reactive, not proactive. Protestants understand 'knowledge' to equate to a man 'knowing' his wife intimately. God's 'foreknowledge' of a man is the same as to say that man is part of the elect. Again it is relational; all is relational
Upvote
0
- Mar 11, 2003
- 11,683
- 8,019
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
First, welcome to Christian Forums!
Second, Protestants have much more variety than one understanding of foreknowledge, especially in regards to Predestination.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
PeaceJoyLove
Well-Known Member
- Apr 9, 2017
- 1,504
- 1,145
- 62
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Interesting...I speak not to human understanding or knowledge, as the Spirit of Truth promises to come and reveal God's wisdom and knowledge...from God, not our mind. It is our own mind that causes confusion - for God is not a God of confusion...
Faith brings a transformation of our own mind/self and allows God to work within us...as we believe HE can do what HE said/promises. Relying on our own understanding will not bring about HIS wisdom and understanding within our being.
Faith is things hoped for...we have to believe and hope HE will reveal these things and take away confusion of face (image of who we are IN Christ/as a son...revealed, no longer hidden.)
Proverbs 2:1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
8 He keepeth the paths of judgment, and preserveth the way of his saints.
9 Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path.
10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
Upvote
0
Richard FC
Member
First, welcome to Christian Forums!
Second, Protestants have much more variety than one understanding of foreknowledge, especially in regards to Predestination.
All4Christ
Yes, thank you, I guess you are right! (I wanted to keep my post short following my very long one immediately before, but I kept it short sloppily). And by Protestant, of course I meant the non-Catholic western churches that emerged after the Reformation. I did not comment on the eastern Orthodox position(s).
I was specifically addressing the meaning of 'knowledge' in the post to which I was responding. Of course predestination, pre-ordination, and 'foreknowledge' (in the technical sense in which I was using it) are all interconnected and I believe I did reasonable justice to the Calvinist position (independent of whether I agree with it or not). I believe Calvin would himself track his view back (through Luther) to Augustine in the latter's stand against Pelagius who was to be declared a heretic.
Of course Augustine's idea that God is proactive in salvation was nuanced by Cassian and, much later, by Jacob Arminius. Yes, God was proactive but not monergistically. Man had to play his part, synergistically. This is a very different view within Protestantism and, yes, Calvin will be turning in his grave!
I suppose I sloppily passed over this Protestant synergism, seeing it as a slight variation of Catholic synergism. In my view, neither forms of synergism can support the predestination or pre-ordination or foreknowledge in the robust form in which I believe it appears in Rom 8's Golden Chain. Those concepts require monergism
But yes, there remain many Protestant attempts to reconcile synergism with predestination. One could be rendered 'justification by faith but sanctification by works' (perhaps unfairly seen as 'Jesus gets you in, your job to stay in', ie don't apostasize). Then there is one that portrays 'the perseverance of the saints' as a prescription not a promise (perhaps unfairly seen as 'Do your best, and Jesus will make up the rest', but be complacent). In my view, both are crypto-synergistic and cannot support the predestination that is intended to bring assurance
However if I have omitted some or not done justice above, I'd love to hear more from you
Forms of synergism will always remain because they are often seen as the best way of avoiding the charges that God is (i) arbitrary in election, and (ii) potentially the author of evil. Paul addresses arbitrariness in Roms 9. I don't think his vivid 'potter' analogy need be taken as a defence of arbitrariness, but it certainly stands as a rebuke to us when we apply human justice to God. He is after all the author and definer of 'fairness' and any sense of it that we have comes from Him and is no doubt corrupted by us.
The charge that God is the author of evil is addressed in Job, even if not to our human satisfaction. Questions of theodicy are all track back to the question of why did God even allow for a Satan and a Fall. On this issue, we are normally prepared to accept God's unfathomable sovereignty and His unfathomable goodness, so there is no great merit in quibbling later on about election. Jesus made it clear that questions of theodicy (the tower of Siloam) are really opportunities for theophany (that God might be seen)
Apologies - this has turned out to be a long one as well !
Upvote
0
I'd be interested in your proof that Calvin's theology that justification isn't a one-time event.
I find that almost impossible to believe knowing Calvin's theology.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
In my quick skim of the article I could not find it either. However, I agree that Hedrick, who is an ordained Presbyterian minister who really ought to be able to verify such a serious assertion, should produce evidence.
Upvote
0
This section is complicated, because much of it dealing with people he disagrees with. But he maintains that we are justified because of our mystical union with Christ, by which his righteousness is available to us. He uses the wonderful phrase "fellowship of righteousness" with Christ. But this is true as long as we are Christians. God's forgiveness is needed and available on an ongoing basis. We stand before God justified for our whole Christian lives.
The context of my comment is a contrast with the Catholic view, in which justification is used for both what we call justification and sanctification. Hence when we sin seriously, we lose justification as well as sanctification. But the Protestant view, in Calvin and others, is that this is not the case. As long as we are Christ's, we remain justified. It's a continuing status of being right with God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
