A study in the use of the word "justify"in the New

[Guest]

Strongs 1344 dikaioō usually translated as “justify”.

This word is derived from:
Strongs 1342 dikaios----- righteous.

We are told by many preachers today that “justified” means “pronounced fully righteous” or “just as if I’d never sinned”. It is supposed to have reference to God declaring us righteous because of Christ having died as our substitute. What then could it mean that people "justified God"? (Luke 7:29). Did these people “pronounce God to be fully righteous”? Was it “just as if God hadn’t sinned”? Of course, God never has sinned.

Shown to be right or righteous

This is probably the most common use of dikaioō. This meaning has persisted right to our present day. If a person “justifies” himself, he will attempt to show that his actions are right or righteous by appealing to the fact that he is following the prescribed rules or laws which deal with the issue.

For example, if a school teacher tries to justify the way he has been teaching the pupils, he can do so by showing that his teaching methods are in accordance with the Department of Education regulations as well as those of the local school board.

Matthew 11:19 the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds."

Luke 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.

These quotes are given in the context of the Pharisees condemning John the Baptizer for living a life of self-denial stating that he had a demon, and reproaching the Lord Jesus who feasted with His friends, stating that He was a glutton and wine-bibber. The exact words of Jesus seem to have been remembered slightly differently. But in either case, wisdom is shown to be right by her deed, and also by her children, that is, by those who are wise.


Matthew 12:37 … by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

These words were uttered after the Pharisees accused our Lord of casting out demons through the prince of demons. Their words would either show them to be righteous, or else would condemn them.



According to the Greek lexicon of the Online Bible, the Greek word dikaioō (Strongs 1344) has these three meanings:

1. render right or righteous (or make right or righteous).
2. show to be right or righteous.
3. declare to be right or righteous.

Strongs’ lexicon also considers one meaning is “to be righteous” and that another meaning is “freed”.

Sometimes, a person tries to show himself or someone else righteous with faulty “justification”. Here is an example from Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:23 Woe to those who… justify the ungodly for rewards, and take away the righteousness of the righteous.

If a person is rewarded, they may attempt to justify wrongdoers, even if there is no real justification. Criminal lawyers do it frequently. In the English speaking world today, we would say that the lawyer “tried to justify” the criminal’s actions. In the Greek scriptures, the word “justify” is used alone in such a case. A Criminal lawyer, after presenting his case to justify his client, will probably state strongly that his client is innocent. In other words, he will declare his client innocent. It is probably from the fact that justification of a person often goes hand-in-hand with declaring him innocent, that it is supposed that one of the meanings of “justify” is “declare to be right or righteous.” Actually the meaning in such a case is “attempt to show to be right or righteous.”


So it seems that the meaning of “dikaioō” is given by one of the following three definitions:

1. Make righteous
2. Show to be right or righteous
3. Attempt to show to be right or righteous

Here is a little exercise to help you think about the uses of “dikaioō” .Which meaning do you think applies in the following passages? 1, 2, or 3?
If you think none of the three applies, and that the translation should be some other word, just make a note of it. Please read them in their context before deciding.

Let’s begin with some Old Testament passages from the Greek Septuagint, a translation from Hebrew into Greek in the third century B.C.

______ Exodus 23:7 You shall abstain from every unjust thing: thou shall not slay the innocent and just, and you shall not justify the wicked for gifts.

______ Deuteronomy 25:1 And if there should be a dispute between men, and they should come forward to judgment, and the judges judge, and justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked:

______ Job 27:5 Far be it from me that I should justify you; till I die I will not let go of my integrity.

______ Psalms 82:3 Judge the orphan and poor: justify the low and needy.

______ Isaiah 53:11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the righteous one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

______ Luke 7:29,30 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)

______ Luke 16:15 But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
______ Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

______ Acts 13:39 and by him every one that believes is justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

______ Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

______ Romans 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every man be false, as it is written, "That you may be justified in you words, and prevail when you are judged."

______ Romans 3:20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
.
______ Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

______ Romans 3:26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justified him who has faith in Jesus.
.
______ Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
.
______ Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justifiedby works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

_____ Romans 4:5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted toward righteousness.

_____ Romans 5:9 Since, therefore, we are now justifiedby his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

_____ Romans 6:7 For he who has died is justifiedfrom sin.

_____ Romans 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he alsojustified; and those whom he justifiedhe also glorified.

______ Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God whojustified.

______1 Corinthians 4:4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me.

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

______ Galatians 2:16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justifiedby faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.
.
______ Galatians 2:17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we ourselves were found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not!

______ Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for “The righteous shall live out of faith";

______ Galatians 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

______ 1 Timothy 3:16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, justified in spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

_____ Titus 3:7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

_____ James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

_____James 2:24 You see that a man is jjustified by works and not by faith alone.

[Guest]

A wise man once said:


"If any man be in Christ," says Paul, "he is a new creation: old things have passed away; all things have become new." By the special favor of God, Jesus Christ "is made unto us wisdom, justification, sanctification, and redemption." Hence, as saith the Prophet, "In him shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and in him shall they glory." "He that boasteth," therefore, "let him boast in the Lord."

What, then, is justification, the first fruit of the heavenly cluster of Divine graces? It is, indeed, a trite but a true saying, that the term justification is a forensic word; and, therefore, indicates that its subject has been accused of crime, or of the transgression of law. It also implies that the subject of it has not only been accused and tried, but also acquitted. Such, then, is the legal or forensic justification. It is, indeed, a sentence of acquittal announced by a tribunal, importing that the accused is found not guilty. If convicted, he can not be justified; if justified, he has not been convicted.

But such is not justification by grace. Evangelical justification is the justification of one that has been convicted as guilty before God, the Supreme and Ultimate Judge of the Universe. But the whole world has been tried and found guilty before God. So that, in fact, "there it none righteous; no, not one." Therefore, by deeds of law no man can be justified before Cod. "For should a man keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." He has despised the whole authority of the law and the Lawgiver. It is, then, utterly impossible that any sinner can be forensically or legally justified before God, by a law which he has in any one instance violated.

If, then, a sinner be justified, it must be on some other principle than law. He must be justified by favor, and not by right. Still it must be rightfully done by him that justifies a transgression, else he will be liable to the charge of injustice to the law and the government. This is the emergency which must be met by evangelical justification. The mission and mediation of the Messiah was primarily to meet this emergency; though, indeed, he has done much more than to meet it. Evangelical justification is, therefore, a justification by favor as respects man; and it has been made just also on the part of God, by the sacrifice or obedience unto death of his Son. Still it must be regarded as not a real or legal justification. It is, as respects man, only pardon, or forgiveness of the past; but the pardoned sinner being ever after treated and regarded as though he were righteous, he is constituted and treated as righteous before God. He is as cordially received into the favor and friendship of God, as though he had never at any time offended against his law. This, then, is what is peculiarly and appropriately called "evangelical justification." Still, legally contemplated, God, in fact, "justifies the ungodly." And so teaches the apostle Paul.


Very well said.

[_Rick_C]

Greetings,

Hmmmm...a lot of ground has been covered here already.

Excerpted from: Justification, by N.T. Wright

JUSTIFICATION denotes, primarily, that action in the lawcourt whereby a judge upholds the case of one party in dispute before him (in the Hebrew lawcourt, where the image originates, all cases consist of an accuser and a defendant, there being no public prosecutor). Having heard the case, the judge finds in favour of one party, and thereby ‘justifies’ him: if he finds for the defendant, this action has the force of ‘acquittal’. The person justified is described as ‘just’, ‘righteous’, not as a description of moral character but as a statement of his status before the court (which will, ideally, be matched by character, but that is not the point).

‘Justification by faith’ is thus a shorthand for ‘justification by grace through faith’, and in Paul’s thought at least has nothing to do with a suspicious attitude towards good behaviour. On the contrary: Paul expects his converts to live in the manner appropriate for members of the covenant [Rom. 6, etc.], and this is in fact necessary if faith is not to appear a sham [2 Cor. 13:5]. His polemic against ‘works of the law’ is not directed against those who attempted to earn covenant membership through keeping the Jewish law [such people do not seem to have existed in the 1st century] but against those who sought to demonstrate their membership in the covenant through obeying the Jewish law. Against these people Paul argues a. that the law cannot in fact be kept perfectly — it merely shows up sin; and b. that this attempt would reduce the covenant to a single race, those who possess the Jewish law, whereas God desires a world-wide family [Rom. 3:27-31; Gal. 3:15-22]. This means that Jas. 2:14-26 is not in conflict with Paul, but expresses the same truth from a different perspective. The ‘faith’ which is insufficient is bare Jewish monotheism [Jas. 2:19]; and Abraham’s faith, through which God declared him within the covenant in Gn. 15 [Jas. 2:23], was simply ‘fulfilled’ in the later incident of Gn. 22 [Jas. 2:21] (underline and italics, mine for emphasis).

And, excerpted from: The Shape of Justification, by N.T. Wright

A misunderstood term has caused great confusion in understanding Paul, and it’s time to get it right.

3. Justification in the present is based on God’s past accomplishment in the Messiah, and anticipates the future verdict. This present justification has exactly the same pattern.

(a) God vindicates in the present, in advance of the last day, all those who believe in Jesus as Messiah and Lord [Romans 3:21-31, 4:13-25, 10:9-13]. The law-court language indicates what is meant. “Justification” is not God’s act of changing the heart or character; Paul uses the verb “call,” the call that comes through the word and the Spirit, to denote that change. “Justification” has a specific, and narrower, reference: It is God’s declaration that the person is now in the right, which confers on them the status of “righteous.”

The faith in question is faith in “the God who raised Jesus from the dead.” It comes about through the announcement of God’s word, the gospel, which works powerfully in the hearts of hearers, “calling” them to believe, or indeed (as Paul often puts it) to “obey” the gospel [Romans 1:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-5, 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:8]. This faith looks backwards to what God has done in Christ; Christian faith relies on that, rather than on anything that is true of oneself. For Paul, this meant refusing to regard the badges of Jewish law observance, “the works of the law,” as the decisive factor [Philippians 3:2-11]. And it looks forward to the final day. This faith is the first sign of new God-given life, and therefore truly anticipates the final verdict [Philippians 1:6].

By “the gospel” Paul does not mean “justification by faith.” He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message—to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord—is to be justified in the present by faith [whether or not one has even heard of justification by faith]. Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine: To believe it is both to have assurance [believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5] and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction [Galatians 2:11-21]. But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham. That is what the word means in Paul’s writings. It doesn’t describe how people get into God’s forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but it is vital (underline mine, for emphasis).

I hope that font isn't too big and I guess I'm supposed to comment,

Wright's view of justification is obviously different than traditional Protestant views. Luther, according to Wright, came to the book of Romans with an incorrect perspective. What Luther saw and personally experienced in the Roman Church was "justification by works" or "a works righteousness." In order to be to be a good Catholic you had to follow its dictates and rules to a T.

When Luther really read and studied Romans for the first time he saw "justification by faith." And he added justifcation by faith alone. Why did he do this?

He essentially equated the Roman Church, with its rules and regulations, with Old Testament Judaism; seeing them as the same. Just as a good Jew rigorously obeyed the Law, so a devoted Catholic obeyed its laws.

What Luther missed, according to Wright, is that this is a false distinction. In Wright's view, OT Jews did not obey the Law to become righteous or to achieve justification through works. Rather, they obeyed God's Law as the "badge of their Covenant membership as the People of God." Put another way, the OT Jews didn't obey Law to get saved: They did it because they were saved. As God's Chosen People, this was simply what they did, how they lived. This is what "The just shall live by faith" means, according to Wright; it was the lifestyle (yes, OT saints had faith too)!

Since Luther's time Protestant Christianity has followed Luther's thought for the most part, seeing justification as a kind of "one time salvific act of God" where your slate is wiped clean: "Just-as-if I never did it (sinned)." Wright does say justification is an 'acquittal' where we are 'put in the right' ('righteous' as in, in right-relationship with God). But there isn't the "faith verses works" in Wright's thinking. Wright says it wasn't in Paul's either.

Justification by faith in Jesus, having our sins forgiven, and becoming members of the Chosen People -- through and in Christ -- is how we are acquitted and acquire the benefits of Kingdom Citizens; "...not through works of righteousness that we have done," said Paul, "but according to His mercy He saved us."

In Paul there is no tension, nor opposition, between doing good works and having faith for the Christian. This false dichotomy and resulting "tension" was brought in by Luther when he erroneously equated the works of Jewish Law with Roman Catholic observance (apples & oranges, imo).

As Kingdom Citizens we obey God not to earn justification (just as the saints of Old didn't either). On the contrary, our obedience comes through love...and the service that love demands.

I don't fully understand Wright (Paul?). But I think both of these fellows were and are onto-something!
Intricate stuff, huh?
Rick

[Guest]

Hey Rick,

Good article!

Quote:

As Kingdom Citizens we obey God not to earn justification (just as the saints of Old didn't either). On the contrary, our obedience comes through love...and the service that love demands".

Amen! Justification by faith in Christ became a profound reality to me while reading Matt. 5-7 sometime ago. I "wrestled" with God here. For the first time in my Christian life (which hadn't been long at that point),
I was close to walking away from it all. You could say I was bordering on blasphemy. I "took God to task" over His demand for complete or perfect obedience.
I pounded my kitchen table in loud verbal protest! Impossisble! I said.
I sounded like the "Accuser" frankly. I asked; How can you impose such a demand upon us and then threaten us with damnation, when we never asked to be born into this "fallen world" to begin with?.... I realized that I was among the "very fallen" at this point. But this I believe, is where the LORD wanted me. He really wanted me to see my need beyond the feelings of guilt we experience when we sin. He wanted to "crush me" under the full weight of the Law...the Law that could not save me brought me to Christ after I was "saved". I understood the Gospel for the first time. It really is "Good News"... I walked away from the match with...a limp. But at least I was "walking"...

[Guest]

Rick:

Wright's view of justification is obviously different than traditional Protestant views. Luther, according to Wright, came to the book of Romans with an incorrect perspective. What Luther saw and personally experienced in the Roman Church was "justification by works" or "a works righteousness." In order to be to be a good Catholic you had to follow its dictates and rules to a T.

What Luther saw in the Catholic Church , and what caused the break were the systems set up to demand payment for sin. Indulgences , penance , and purgatory have in common the belief that Christ's atonement on the cross was not enough , and that the sinner must pay in addition to receive entrance to heaven. Whether in money or works or time in punishment it amounted to a system that demanded sacrificial payment for righteousness.

When Luther really read and studied Romans for the first time he saw "justification by faith." And he added justifcation by faith alone. Why did he do this?

Because it is not possible for us to pay our debt to Christ , it can only be a gift from God.

What Luther missed, according to Wright, is that this is a false distinction. In Wright's view, OT Jews did not obey the Law to become righteous or to achieve justification through works. Rather, they obeyed God's Law as the "badge of their Covenant membership as the People of God." Put another way, the OT Jews didn't obey Law to get saved: They did it because they were saved. As God's Chosen People, this was simply what they did, how they lived

The Temple sacrifices? They were done for the payment for sin and to make a person righteous. Much of the law was done away with by Christ , He was the last sacrifice.

Since Luther's time Protestant Christianity has followed Luther's thought for the most part, seeing justification as a kind of "one time salvific act of God" where your slate is wiped clean: "Just-as-if I never did it (sinned)

That seems to be Calvin's "once saved always saved" , Luther condemned it , just as he would have condemned Arminius . Luther considered a Christian as a sinner always in need of being put right with God through true repentance , an on going "life of repentance" not a one time shot.

In Paul there is no tension, nor opposition, between doing good works and having faith for the Christian. This false dichotomy and resulting "tension" was brought in by Luther when he erroneously equated the works of Jewish Law with Roman Catholic observance (apples & oranges, imo).

The tension with Luther was the separation between the Law and Gospel. Obeying the Law cannot save , it can only convict us of our need to be saved. The Gospel saves us as a gift from God. You cannot say "obey the law and be saved" but rather "be saved and obey the law." Obedience is an effect of salvation not it's cause.

Thomas

Travelers testimony is an excellent example.

[_Rick_C]

Hello from Indian Summer Shelby County, Ohio, Thomas

What Luther saw in the Catholic Church , and what caused the break were the systems set up to demand payment for sin. Indulgences , penance , and purgatory have in common the belief that Christ's atonement on the cross was not enough , and that the sinner must pay in addition to receive entrance to heaven. Whether in money or works or time in punishment it amounted to a system that demanded sacrificial payment for righteousness.

Yes, indeed; those systems were the particulars and a (the?) primary issue was payment for sin. These extra-and-non-biblical requirements of the Roman Church were a lot like the Pharisaical "traditions of men" that Jesus so often spoke against.

When Luther really read and studied Romans for the first time he saw "justification by faith." And he added justification by faith alone. Why did he do this?

You wrote:
Because it is not possible for us to pay our debt to Christ , it can only be a gift from God.

Amen, with a reiteration on the ineffectual and erroneous 'traditions of men' -- indulgences, etc., did not and do not atone for sin.

What Luther missed, according to Wright, is that this is a false distinction. In Wright's view, OT Jews did not obey the Law to become righteous or to achieve justification through works. Rather, they obeyed God's Law as the "badge of their Covenant membership as the People of God." Put another way, the OT Jews didn't obey Law to get saved: They did it because they were saved. As God's Chosen People, this was simply what they did, how they lived.

Your reply:
The Temple sacrifices? They were done for the payment for sin and to make a person righteous. Much of the law was done away with by Christ , He was the last sacrifice.

I was referring to what all it meant to be an 'observant' (good) Jew.

Since Luther's time Protestant Christianity has followed Luther's thought for the most part, seeing justification as a kind of "one time salvific act of God" where your slate is wiped clean: "Just-as-if I never did it (sinned)

You:
That seems to be Calvin's "once saved always saved" , Luther condemned it , just as he would have condemned Arminius . Luther considered a Christian as a sinner always in need of being put right with God through true repentance , an on going "life of repentance" not a one time shot.

Please let me totally rephrase that, sorry:
"Since the Reformation Protestant Christianity has followed Reformational thought, seeing justification by faith alone as where and when your slate is wiped clean: 'Just-as-if I never did it' (sinned). Put another way, justification by faith alone is virtually synonymous with regeneration/conversion" (I hope is clearer).

The tension with Luther was the separation between the Law and Gospel. Obeying the Law cannot save , it can only convict us of our need to be saved. The Gospel saves us as a gift from God. You cannot say "obey the law and be saved" but rather "be saved and obey the law." Obedience is an effect of salvation not it's cause.

This is where N.T. Wright has a different angle on things. He would say the OT saints (Law observant Jews, including the 'remnant' of Jesus' disciples) obeyed God because they were saved. By 'saved' here, I mean they were the recipients of salvation as the Chosen People of God. As such, the Law was "good and holy" for them when it convicted them of sin (see Romans 7, which I believe is idomatically addressed to 'a (typical) Jew' -- Paul's "I" -- under the Law, but that's an aside to this thread)....

I see what you mean about Luther and understand Bob's testimony too, as I've experienced the same things in my life (Praise the Lord, Bob)!

One interesting thing is how the NT says believing the Gospel is "obedience" to God. Again, Luther's problems, so to speak, about Law and Gospel, weren't what first century Jews really even thought about, imo.

To Wright, first century Jewish-Christians didn't have a 'Lutherian tension'. It just didn't exist for them. In Paul's own words:
Philippians 3 (NASB)
3for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
4although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

Even at his conversion on the way to Damascus to arrest Christians; Paul was sincerely and zealously 'doing' what he felt was right[eous] and what the law demanded: arresting heretics, thereby purging evil-doers from Israel!

(This stuff is hard to unravel for me, puzzling)....

While Luther experienced Law V. (or separated from) Gospel and that tension of guilt, inability to obey, and be[come] righteous---Paul seemed to have achieved 'top status' of what righteousness could be attained under the Law system. The Law utterly condemned Luther while Paul seemed to have essentially had a clear conscience in or under it at his conversion, though not without difficulty and failures (Ro 7, again).

Luther had 'mental assent' regarding the Gospel before his conversion as belief in certain doctrines or theological matters. He certainly knew 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures', and so on. But till he was really converted he didn't ginosko (Greek, 'intimately know') justification, according to the Scriptures: He didn't have biblical faith.

The stumbling block of the Gospel for the [first century] Jews was that justification could come through a crucified messiah. When Paul met Jesus, and in the succeeding 14 years or so; Paul learned what all that meant "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Ga 1:12b).

Paul is distinguished from Luther also in that, prior to his conversion, he had legitimate faith in God as a devoted Jew under the Law. Wright observes that Paul wasn't exactly 'converted' as Protestants define it. Sure, Wright absolutely acknowledges Paul was 'saved' and so forth. But when Paul got-saved (if you don't mind that expression)...he was doing precisely what he believed to be right before God.

But in those years when Paul received his revelation through Jesus he learned that, with regard to his 'Israelite brethren according to the flesh', as he [later] wrote: Ro 11, (NASB) 1Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.

What Luther and Paul had in common was ginosko (intimately knowing) the righteousness of God that comes through faith in Jesus alone.

God bless,
Rick

P.S. WOW! What a long post! Sorry about that,

[_Rick_C]

Bob,

Brother, I know what rebellion and "railing" against God are like. I'm a recovered alcoholic---through the Grace of God and our Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of God (1 Co 6:9-11, my 'theme' verses).

I don't ever want to forget what I used to be like, what happened, and what I'm like now....Thanks for sharing your heart with us. God bless you!
Rick

[Guest]

Hey Rick,

Quote: "I don't ever want to forget what I used to be like, what happened, and what I'm like now...."

I say amen to that! I have 'a long way to go' though. One of the things I still 'struggle' with is purity of thought. I mean its one thing to be under control with your words and actions among brothers. The 'flesh' in many ways still wants to assert its 'authority'. But the difference now is that my confidence is no longer in my own strenghth or ability to 'walk the walk'.

What is being 'changed' in me by the Lord is a deepening desire to obey Him out of love for Him, not 'fear'. In retrospect, when God 'began His good work in me', even before I percieved His hand upon me,
He was (and is) always gentile or strong as was necessary according to my needs. He is a True Father and worthy of our worship. "A broken and contrite heart the Lord does not despise"... There is a Psalm that comes to mind 32: 4-5..."I will confess my transgressions to the LORD. and you
forgave the guilt of my sin..." The LAW of God only, makes this confession possible. The blood of Christ only, can make it eternal through
His Atonement. God therefore by no means "aquitted the guilty". He gave us a FULL PARDON. AMEN?

Eternally Pardoned in Jesus,
Bob

[Guest]

Hola Rick:

From Panama , where one goes to get away from Shelby County winters.

"Since the Reformation Protestant Christianity has followed Reformational thought, seeing justification by faith alone as where and when your slate is wiped clean: 'Just-as-if I never did it' (sinned). Put another way, justification by faith alone is virtually synonymous with regeneration/conversion" (I hope is clearer).

Let me start with what Paidon said:

According to the Greek lexicon of the Online Bible, the Greek word dikaioō (Strongs 1344) has these three meanings:
1. render right or righteous (or make right or righteous).
2. show to be right or righteous.
3. declare to be right or righteous.

This is the way Luther used it. From the Book Of Concord (the Lutheran confessions)

We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means
in this article, to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins. Prov. 17,

1577 Jakob Andreä , Martin Chemnitz

Justification is synonymous with forgiveness.

It is the Grace of God that gives one faith and regenerates (born again) i.e. salvation , then this faith grants forgiveness of sins and makes one right with God , justification.
However as one falls short , one needs to be made right again. So that justification happens at salvation but is a continuous need.

The jews , not having the advantage of the atonement of Christ , must personally atone for their transgressions , i.e. made right again. Originally they did this through sacrifices in the Temple , however since AD 70:

We can still gain ritual atonement through deeds of loving-kindness. For it is written 'Lovingkindness I desire, not sacrifice.'" (Hosea 6:6)
Midrash Avot D'Rabbi Nathan 4:5

They make themselves right with God through their acts. The same thing the RCC teaches. Luther was correct in comparing them.

Luther had 'mental assent' regarding the Gospel before his conversion as belief in certain doctrines or theological matters. He certainly knew 'Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures', and so on. But till he was really converted he didn't ginosko (Greek, 'intimately know') justification, according to the Scriptures: He didn't have biblical faith.

Luther DID have biblical faith , the problem was that he was being told that this faith was not enough. It was not until he realized that Christ's atonement was sufficient , and that he himself did not need additional atonement , that he had his breakthrough.

This is where N.T. Wright has a different angle on things. He would say the OT saints (Law observant Jews, including the 'remnant' of Jesus' disciples) obeyed God because they were saved. By 'saved' here, I mean they were the recipients of salvation as the Chosen People of God. As such, the Law was "good and holy" for them when it convicted them of sin

Wright says this because he sees justification as a one time event that saves and brings one into a covenant relationship with God. In so far as salvation is concerned he is right , but it has nothing to do with justification unless one can never sin again after salvation.. This is Calvinist OSAS-BS. Jews and Christians both sin and need to be made right with God and that is justification..


My conclusion is , and I always wanted to say this with a straight face:

Wright is Wrong.

Thomas

Luther never had much influence outside of Germany and Scandinavia. American Protestantism was developed under the influence of Calvin , Wesley and the Baptists. Luther is poorly understood

I just get no respect.LOL

[_Rick_C]

Hi Thomas,

Luther DID have biblical faith , the problem was that he was being told that this faith was not enough. It was not until he realized that Christ's atonement was sufficient , and that he himself did not need additional atonement , that he had his breakthrough.

Excerpted from, dated between 1512-1515, one site has it May, 1515:
Martin Luther's Account of His Conversion:

Meanwhile, I had already during that year returned to interpret the Psalter anew. I had confidence in the fact that I was more skilful, after I had lectured in the university on St. Paul's epistles to the Romans, to the Galatias [Galatians], and the one to the Hebrews. I had indeed been captivated with an extraordinary ardor for understanding Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed," that had stood in my way. For I hated that word "righteousness of God," which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active righteousness, as they call it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, "As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!" Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, "In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scripture from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word "righteousness of God." Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. Later I read Augustine's The Spirit and the Letter, where contrary to hope I found that he, too, interpreted God's righteousness in a similar way, as the righteousness with which God clothes us when he justifies us (Augustine passage included below). Although this was heretofore said imperfectly and he did not explain all things concerning imputation clearly, it nevertheless was pleasing that God's righteousness with which we are justified was taught.

In Luther's own words, he did NOT have faith. As he said, "I hated the righteous God," right up till he was born again.

If you read on (Augustine, what Luther read) you'll find that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin believed in: (imputed righteousness) as Luther wrote, "with which he (God) clothes us when he justifies us".

Wright says this because he sees justification as a one time event that saves and brings one into a covenant relationship with God.

From my link, above:

1. The question of justification is a matter of covenant membership. The underlying question in (for instance) Gal. 3 and 4 is: Who are the true children of Abraham? Paul’s answer is that membership belongs to all who believe in the gospel of Jesus, whatever their racial or moral background.

2. The basis of this verdict is the representative death and resurrection of Jesus himself. In view of universal sin, God can only be in covenant with human beings if that sin is dealt with, and this has been achieved by God himself in the death of his Son (Rom. 3:24-26; 5:8-9). Jesus takes on himself the curse which would have prevented God’s promised blessing finding fulfilment (Gal. 3:10-14). The resurrection is God’s declaration that Jesus, and hence his people, are in the right before God (Rom. 4:24-25).

3. The verdict issued in the present on the basis of faith (Rom. 3:21-26) correctly anticipates the verdict to be issued in the final judgment on the basis of the total life (Rom. 2:1-16, on which see Cranfield, Romans, vol. 1, pp. 151-153). This future ‘verdict’ is in fact, seen from another angle, simply resurrection itself (Phil. 3:9-11). The logic of this ‘eschatological’ perspective is explained as follows: faith is itself the sign of God’s life-giving work, by his Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), and what God has begun he will complete (Phil. 1:6).

Wright sees justification as eschatological: in the present (upon entry into the Chosen People), future in this life, and future and final in the age to come.

In so far as salvation is concerned he is right , but it has nothing to do with justification unless one can never sin again after salvation. This is Calvinist OSAS-BS. Jews and Christians both sin and need to be made right with God and that is justification.

The People of God (who I believe are those who have faith in Jesus, Jew and Gentile alike) are and will remain justified by faith in Jesus whether individuals Christians sin and fall away or not. If and when Christians do sin, they need to be reconciled to God through confession of sin/repentance.

While this could be seen as becoming "re-justified (or put in the right again)"...Does the Bible teach "re-justification by faith in Jesus"? For a person to be "re-justified" they would have had to sinned to the point of no longer being in the community of the People of God. The Bible does talk of people like this.

We know the Bible teaches continued forgiveness of sin for the believer. But believers remain justified by faith in Jesus as long as they confess their sins thereby maintaining a right relationship with God. Or, Christians don't need 're-justification'...though former believers certainly do. Yet the basis for former believers becoming justified again; it remains the same for all: the singular eschatological coming of Christ to reveal a new "righteousness that is from God."

Lastly, from my link, above:

With the disappearance of Paul’s particular polemical situation, it was likely that the doctrine of justification would be reapplied in new ways, and this happened with its development as the over-all view of how one becomes a Christian — a much wider notion than the very precise NT usage. Allied to the medieval view of God’s righteousness as iustitia distributiva, this encouraged a belief in good works as the means by which one earns merit or favour with God. In reacting against this, Luther never totally avoided the risk of making faith a substitute for works, and hence itself a meritorious performance on man’s part. His failure to note the Jewish, covenantal and eschatological content of Paul’s doctrine led to exegetical difficulties (e.g. the meaning of Rom. 2 and Rom. 9-11) and theological problems (the danger of a dualistic rejection of the law, and the difficulty of providing a thorough foundation for ethics) which have beset subsequent Protestantism. In particular, popular Protestantism has often more or less elided the distinction between justification and regeneration, using ‘justification by faith’ as a slogan for a romantic or existentialist view of Christianity, rightly criticized by Roman Catholics. Roman Catholic views of justification have continued to be influenced by Augustine, who saw it as God’s action in making people righteous, through pouring into their hearts love towards himself. This stress on the actual change which God effects in the sinner has continued into modern Roman Catholic theology. The result of this is significantly to broaden the reference of the word, to include far more than Paul (or the Reformers) intended.

"Faith and works" is perhaps, THE issue in Protestantism...whether Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian, Baptist, other.....

On that note, thus endeth my post.
Rick