The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What is justification and why is it necessary?

Here is an intelligent critique of Wright’s view on justification. This is not by someone who agrees with him on all matters; but the author is well known and respected, Craig Blomberg.Excerpt:

Put another way, those who find sixteenth-century formulations of theology the best ever produced in Christian history and not to be tampered with in any fashion, even on the basis of Scripture itself, will struggle with Paul’s repeated references to the Christians being judged according to their works. While Gal 5:6; Phil 2:12-13; Eph 2:10; and numerous other texts all clearly speak of the role transformed living must play for the truly justified person, too many Protestants recoil at the thought that Paul’s texts on judgment according to works (esp. Rom 2:6-11, 13-16, 25-29; 1 Cor 3:10-15; and 2 Cor 5:10) might mean exactly what they say when read in straightforward fashion. Of course, no one is justified by works, in the sense of God’s legal declaration of right standing with him. But the Spirit (note, e.g., his crucial role in Romans 8 and Galatians 5) proceeds to indwell the justified person, enabling one to obey God’s righteous standards, not perfectly or anything close to it, but in a way that one could never have done before. The justified are thus marked out as living to some degree in morally virtuous ways that demonstrate the reality of their experience with Christ. To this degree they can be said, in the final analysis, to be judged favorably on the basis of their works.

Throughout his prolific writing career, Wright has increasingly centered his attention on the breadth of the gospel message being much more than how an individual attains salvation, defined as life in heaven after death. Instead, Wright wants to keep reminding us that God’s plan for his creation extends to the re-creation of the entire cosmos, climaxing in new heavens and new earth. Fixate on the Reformers’ (understandable) preoccupation with how an individual becomes right with God (crucial in its day against medieval Catholicism) and one may miss the bigger picture, in which the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham through the children of Israel as progenitor of the Messiah looms even larger. Begin with this bigger picture and justification by grace through faith rather than works of the Law follows necessarily, but it will be understood in the larger, less anthropocentric but fully theocentric context of God’s Lordship in Christ over the whole universe. end of excerpt

It makes sense of Paul, does it not?

For the full critique, not a long read btw, you can go right here

Mrs Ozera, I think it’s both. We are righteous because we are born again of the Spirit. We are becoming righteous because of the work of the Holy Spirit within us. And a bonus third step… we will be made fully righteous at the resurrection of our bodies into newness of life.

The goal, yes, is to be without sin–and that should be GOOD and not frightening news–because it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. It is HE who works within us to fulfill His good pleasure.

As (I think) Paidion posted --maybe here in this thread-- I can’t remember; God is not easy to satisfy, but He is very easy to PLEASE.

Look at it this way: Let’s say I have a little grandchild visiting. I want her to clean up her bedroom (the guest room) and make the bed, so I ask her to do this. She says, “Yes, Grandma!” and runs to the guest room, picks up her clothes off the floor and puts them in her bag, then does her best to make the bed. I am pleased and delighted with her obedience, yet I will still teach her how to make the bed and help her to do it. As she grows and matures, I’ll expect her to do these things without being told, and while I’ll still be pleased, I’ll expect more of her as she becomes able to do more. I will teach her and remind her and still love her even if she forgets–even if she rebels. However, if she does rebel, that will damage our relationship. It will make me sad and her bad behavior will harm both of us. It will not stop me loving her, but it will cause pain. She may reject me but I will never reject her. If she returns to me, I will welcome her with joy–like the father of the prodigal son.

God is like that. God is our loving Father, not some hard-to-please task master. HE will work His righteousness in our lives (and not we ourselves) as we cooperate with Him and submit to His ministrations to us.

Blessings, Cindy

DaveB,

By “relevant texts” in Paul, I of course was including the eight I quoted. I appreciate your references to Wright and the dilemma in Paul of not being justified by works, but being judged according to our works. Many in the New Perspective think the first refers as usually specified to the works “of the Law,” while the second refers to good works in general. I suspect it’s more complicated than that, and involves the differing tenses of justification that you cite, and Paul’s understanding that the vital good works produced in us by faith are ultimately credited to God’s doing, and thus will be the criterion by which we will be pronounced righteous or acquitted at the future day of judgment.

Perhaps a central conundrum with ideas of instant ‘legal’ justification is whether Paul’s understanding of believing correct doctrines implies that persevering through a process of growth in actual righteousness is then not essential. My impression is that Paul does not see being ‘justified by faith’ as implying that we are then exempt from the painful consequences of sinful choices, or of God’s judgment in that sense. I.e. it’s vital to affirm that acceptable faith leads to a changed life that “works by love.” Maybe that’s just another way of saying that I doubt the classic reformed tendency to define justification essentially as an ‘imputed’ righteousness.

Thanks for that clarity, Bob. (Clarity is not an easy thing to achieve, especially on a Forum, it seems. I know I struggle with it).

And I agree fully with you.

Justification can also mean the act of showing what is right and reasonable. In this sense, yes, we need justification in order to prove that the words that are spoken are true.For example, I listen to Dave Ramsey because I believe in his message. Why should I live within my means? I look around and see those who drive nicer cars, live in bigger houses, wear better clothes, eat out constantly, are up to date in the technological world, etc. etc. all on credit. Sometimes, I feel like I am on the losing end of the deal. However, I continue to persevere in my belief that it is proper and right to live within one’s means. As another example, take the South Beach diet plan versus the Atkinson’s diet plan. Both propose that if you follow them, you will lose weight. If you do not lose weight, the plan is not justified( shown to be right). I know that this may not be the best example,but hopefully you get my drift. Why should we follow Jesus? Is this the way to life and are the words that He spoke actually true? Do we receive the blessings of life if we follow Him, and if not, do our lives end in destruction? Look around and see the evidence and the testimony for yourself.

You said

and I’ll concur it did. Thanks for the clarification and I think I know where you are coming from :slight_smile:

You said:

Could be, and thanks for putting me in such grand company but they might not be so thrilled to be lumped with the likes of me. :laughing:

Some times I view some of these back and forth episodes as splitting hairs, or concentrating on certain individual tree’s and not the forest. But this being a forum, I assume I have that privilege.

Finally you said:

Respectfully, it is not *‘just responding’ *that in my view it’s a mistake to take these texts as ‘written to us.’ I am well aware that you take these texts very seriously, and you have some very good and compelling exegesis on these verses. But I would say that it is my opinion that Paul never was talking more than to the people of that time. He was not addressing us some 2000 years later in my opinion. :astonished:

You yourself Bob have written position papers that address issues that you would consider, I assume, to be relevant to any that would hear them, whether tomorrow or in 100 years. You wrote them in such a way as it would be obvious. I would say that this is not the case with Paul’s letters, or much of the NT in my opinion. And Yes I realize I am going against tradition and orthodoxy. :wink: The dynamic of Paul is a Pharisee who was getting after it and had His ‘road to Damascus’ revelation and subsequent conversion were taken to his kinsmen first and then when that didn’t pan out he went to the gentiles, and thus the great book of Romans. I have no argument that we can learn from Paul’s teachings, just that they were not meant for us here in 2018. :smiley:

Chad - I"m very interested to hear your reasoning on that. Certainly Paul was writing, for instance, to the Christians in Rome when he wrote Romans.
But I think the Damascus Road and the 2 years ‘in the desert’ gave Paul true insights in what God was and is ‘up to’ - His eternal plan.

But that is for me to defend - first I’d like to know your reasoning otherwise. I know it’s a big subject and your answers might be a real help.

There’s a very interesting Quora discussion thread

Who is the intended audience of the Bible?

Oh, yes. What about Chad’s theory? Let’s ask Charlie Chan. :laughing:

Ahhh, yes, that is the rub. Was God’s, as we say ‘eternal plan’ meant for the Israelites there at that time? Or for the whole of humanity for generations to come… And no offence to those who look at the NT as CS Lewis has… :open_mouth: That somehow Jesus and most of the writers of the NT got the second coming wrong???

Yes Paul’s time with God meant something, both to the folks there at that time and to us. But differently… In my very humble opinion.

The understanding that the whole of humanity ‘was included’ in the happenings of the first century was totally prophesied through the OT Prophets.

There was every understanding that Christ was coming soon. I don’t want to get into a peeing match about that. If you want look at the James Stuart Russell book about the scriptural impending coming of Christ, it is a good read. And free. :smiley:

So if we look that Jesus did take care of the sin between man and God, that all of the stuff between ‘ADAM’ and ‘GOD’ has been reconciled by and through Christ, Much of our 'evangelical exegesis may well be for not. :open_mouth:

Just a thought. :laughing:

Cheers.

Randy says my theory is the most stupid he (or Jackie Chan) has ever heard.

I’m getting used to these assaults. The whole Idea of this and other forums is to exchange ideas.

Good luck Randy.

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP - there, I win! :wink:

Thanks Chad, that helps me understand you better. NOw if only you would point to the evangelical exegesis that your stance would question, I’d be even happier, which I know is what all of you wish for) :laughing: :laughing:

Just a couple of examples would be nice.
Thanks. I"m not ppppppppppppppppppping either :smiley:

Don’t blame me. Blame Charlie Chan. Since when do you take, someone following the Holy Fools tradition - seriously. :laughing:

Or to put it another way. If William Shakespeare injects some comic elements - into one of his tragedies. Do you take it seriously?

But when I talk about the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse. That’s a different matter entirely. :wink:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/plantsvszombies/images/a/a2/Shakespeare.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140518195555

Hi Dave, I have no stance nor want to. Just like I told you when I said I don’t care what you believe. I’m not an evangelical.

We should leave it at this. :laughing:

If the thread goes on to how people are justified or who are justified or by what means ANYONE is justified, than have at it.

My contention is that Christ Justified ALL.

Fairly straight forward I would say.

On another note, Guitars, what is your business plan? If I can ask?

Just a footnote - to the question. A business plan and a marketing plan…is something that score.org/ and the sba.gov/ - can help with for free. And usually quite well - I might add.

MM, I always appreciate your humbly gracious and respectful interaction (and many times resonate with where you come out).

Still, this thread asked how we should understand the use of the term, “justification.” And you are quite right to affirm that I assume Paul’s exposition Is “relevant” to discussions of that. Thus I appreciate you plain response: “I’d say that this is not the case with Paul’s letters, or much of the NT in my opinion.” Thus I also admire and agree with your clear recognition, “Yes, I realize I am going against tradition and orthodoxy.”

While every Christian theolog who has impressed me recognizes that N.T. writers were addressing their immediate generation, I am ignorant of the approach that you appear to favor that this leaves such texts as not ‘relevant’ to the Christian tradition’s formulation of our own beliefs. Of course, HOW it applies in our later setting is complex and much debated. But you rightly affirm that the Christian tradition assumes that such Biblical writings should be central in our wresting with such topics. Thus when you appear to dismiss interpretations offered of such texts, as if we’re citing sources that are not even “relevant,” I’m too ignorant to know upon what basis we are to form and evaluate our theology, such as how to think about ‘justification.’ (As Dave suggests, examples of how you process such questions or texts might make your approach clearer for us)

Grace be with you,
Bob

Bob said:

When we look at scripture, both OT and NT in a different light, that is what I am talking about when I reference the historical context. I do not dismiss interpretations, I question the relevance of the language to us here at the present time.

As to the understanding of justification, the thread shows that there is plenty of evidence that the Christ has done what the Father sent him to do.

If we start to tear apart Paul’s or for that matter Christ’s own words about the evangelical idea of ‘SALVATION’ we will end up in a quagmire of works and who is/are willing or predestined bla bla bla. :laughing:

Bob, I will say this and you can diss me all you want. EVERY TIME WE QUESTION THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF ALL OF ALL OF OUR SINS, WE ARE TURNING OUR BACKS ON THE GOD WHO LOVES AND THE SON HE SENT. :open_mouth:

Chad, You say you don’t dismiss interpretation’s importance, then seem to only address my effort to offer one as “tearing apart Paul’s words on justification” and just being “bla bla bla.” So when you then state that it’s disastrous to question your own interpretation which you put in CAPS, it strikes me as bare assertion, and it’s unclear to me upon what common ground anyone including me could interact with or evaluate your own assertion’s interpretation.

Chad - I’m going through the sites Randy suggested, and a plan is forming. I will keep you apprised and I’m open to any suggestions as well.

Actually, that is a realistic view. My caps are my view. Your or anyone’s view is valid to you. And I appreciate and accept your view.

I will ask, as I have already positioned myself as unorthodox, why are you having a problem with my position?

I am stating said position for others to hear. Your idea of common ground will be predicated on your ability to listen and hear other ideas. :open_mouth:

I’m not sure where ‘disastrous’ comes from… Did I say that?

Now having said

But… It is important that we should maybe realize that He still loves us and the sacrifice is still valid… Still valid…Is done.
:open_mouth: