The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A lutheran perspective

Evangelical Universalism
#21

I didn’t have Heb 2 particularly in mind; but yes, that’s an example of the already/not-yet concept. :slight_smile: (Good literal translation there, btw!)

I’ve got the article compiled now, but for topicality’s sake I want to leave room a while for more people to state, and discuss, what they find (and so believe) to be the fundamental concept of justification.

As a line of thought to how I would answer that question myself (which I hope to do later): what does justification have to do with justice?

The words in Greek are even more closely related than in English, by the way:

just (adjective) == dikaion (often translated as “righteous”)
fair (adjective) == endikon (in-just)
justification (noun) == dikaioma (just-effect; occasionally translated as “righteousness”)
just verdict (noun) == hupodikos (under-just)
justice (noun) == dike
justify (verb) == dikaioo (sometimes also translated as justification; grammatically modified to Justifier a couple of times as a name-title for God)
justifying == dikaiosis
justly (adverb) == dikaios (translated as “righteousness” at least once)
fair-togetherness == dikaiosune (just-togetherness; the most common term translated to “righteousness”)

I haven’t yet noticed anything about justice per se in the preceding comments about the most fundamental meaning of justification (though Aaron seems to be close to that–he posted while I was composing :slight_smile: ) Would anyone care to rephrase or add in light of that? And/or in relation to “righteousness” (which I see mentioned several times)?

#22

Also, would you consider changing the title of the thread, Ran, to something more clearly descriptive?

(I was thinking something like ‘Scope and character of objective justification’.)

#23

Jason.

i started a Justification and Sanctification topic under biblical theology.

#24

I saw; I think I will post the paper there, and direct discussion about justification compared to sanctification in that direction, so it’ll be easier to follow the two related lines of thought: i.e. here we can discuss fundamental meanings of justification, while over there we can discuss how justification is related to sanctification.

Don’t hold this against BA, btw, guys; he’s only making room for a related but topically narrower discussion. :slight_smile: I was thinking about doing the same thing myself.

#25

Okay the paper providing a set of scriptural citations for discussion of justification and sanctification (and their relationship theologically and exegetically with each other), has now been posted in that other thread.

Here’s the link:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=711&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

#26

I think the declaration of righteousness assumes God’s justice IN the declaration. He is acting justly if, in fact, Christ took away the worlds sins. Which He did. But that’s as far as we need to ride the root word ‘just’ in discovering WHAT is being declared.

Which is nothing less then declaring/making/changing the ontological status of mankind from Adam to Christ!

The legal analogy has been beaten to death - and is a faulty way of explaining justification in my opinion. It doesn’t explain BEING. In all the scenarios I’ve read - none of them have the defendant walking out of the court resurrected.

The legal analogy can take on a life of it own. Everything from the Judge being blind or ignorant - to verdicts being overturned if one doesn’t hear the verdict or believe the verdict - it turns out to be no verdict at all! What kind of screwy court is THAT?

#27

Another perspective which is maybe the simplest and yet the deepest perspective is that justification, sanctification, resurrection and righteousness is a personage in the way of Christ Jesus.

“Pretty soon, everybody will get what they deserve, which is Justification, Sanctification Resurrection, Glorification, Salvation, Reconciliation, Restitution, Restoration, Immortality and Incorruption - now ain’t that the coolest thing!”

John

#28

Ran,

A quick question for clarification: are you saying you consider justice, conceptually, to be only a legal analogy at best?

Also, if we don’t need to ride the root word ‘just’ very far (for whatever reason) in considering the most fundamental meaning of justification, does that mean you think it is proportionately unimportant that so many relevant words in NT Greek (including the term we translate “righteousness”) are built on that root word? i.e., it looks like the NT texts (especially St. Paul) ride that root word pretty dang far. :slight_smile: But you think that this is unimportant, and that we shouldn’t bother to similarly emphasize and deploy the concept, too? (Or not distantly as much?)

I’m asking, because I’m not sure I understand what you mean by your most recent comment.

#29

Of course not. Justice makes justification possible in that His Son’s blood was spilled for our forgiveness - justifying God’s action in releasing us from death while at the same time fulfilling the Law. He did not break His own Justice in doing that. That’s the first use of the term and primarily a legal one to explain and reveal the redemption by His Son.

It is certainly not about justifying OUR justice or OUR righteousness. We have neither to offer. So when we use the phrase “Justified by faith” we are STILL speaking about the right, justness, and, well, perfect symmetry of God’s action in forgiving us. We are bragging on God - not ourselves. With that understood, we enter into the second use of the term, which is:

His justified action itself: The ontological change - the new being for mankind. You will be changed. Which is what the Redemption and the Justification of sinners points to - the resurrection of Christ, the first born of humanity.

If there is a bottom-line to all this: God get’s all the Glory. Your ‘justified faith’ (however errant it may be) is expected and inevitably perfected, anyway. Meanwhile, advance His Kingdom a cup of water at a time - that’s where the rewards lie by imperfect human beings doing their best.

I am tired of hearing of one’s ‘justified faith’ being an excuse and fortification for every God damned Gospel destroying error.

#30

I guess I’d say that justice is about fairness; to be just and do justly is to be fair and to act fairly. But what does it mean to be fair? Well, I think it depends on the relationship. We act fairly toward another person when we treat them according to how they “ought” to be treated (but without necessarily doing so out of a sense of duty or obligation). We act fairly toward our fellow human beings when we observe the “golden rule” of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. We act fairly toward God when we “take him seriously,” so to speak, and ascribe supreme worth to him - and in light of the Christian revelation that God is our heavenly Father, our acting fairly toward him would mean obeying him out of a sense of filial love for who he has revealed himself to be. I think those who have begun to do this (not perfectly, or all the time, but as an ever-increasing aspect of their character) may be said to be “just” and “righteous.” Perhaps it could also be said that, if God’s character defines justice, then it is those who have begun to approximate God’s own just character who may be called (and declared by God to be) just (i.e., to the extent that they have begun to resemble God).

Of course, I admit the possibility of being way off base here. :slight_smile: What are your thoughts, Jason?

#31

Is it fair of God to redeem and forgive unfair and unjust people?

Of course, if He hasn’t, or doesn’t, or won’t forgive such sinners - then there is no need to look for justification of His Actions.

You’re turning the word to be mean that He is justified in His Action because we can be so inherently nice - i.e. justifying our action as worthy and meritorious of His Action.

#32

Just to be clear: I don’t think being a just/righteous person means being “inherently” good. I think God only is inherently good, and that any goodness in anyone’s character is always the result of God’s unmerited favor. I believe that even the faith by which we are justified comes from God, and is not of ourselves. Moreover, I do not think that any degree of righteousness one may attain to in this life in any way makes one more deserving of an immortal existence in heaven than anyone else; with the exception of Jesus Christ, I think the most righteous person who has ever lived falls far short of being worthy of immortality because of anything they’ve done. I understand the resurrection - and any happiness we experience following it - to be completely a matter of God’s grace. I don’t think we contribute anything at all to our being saved from death.

#33

Likewise Christ’s sacrifice justifies us - and that we neither contribute to nor subtract from. “Since we have now been justified by his blood…” rom5 or “…having been justified by his grace” titus3

Too many people use the term to mean ‘special’ to the exclusion of others. Everyone is justified - perhaps not to us as James uses the world - but justified, redeemed and forgiven to God.

The only time Jesus uses the word is here: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”