The Timing of Justification and Imputation

[Brandan Kraft]

There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!!

John

I like how you exegeted this John. It wasn't Christ's "personal faith" in whatever that saved us, but it was His faithfulness to His promises. That is what an older debate is about.

[jmgipson]

Rome's order is: Regeneration, Faith, Justification.

Thus Rome and many protestants, abandon the primacy of justification. They confound root and fruit, and create a synthesis of the two. They also confound Law and Grace.

Well I hope this is all clear. Your comments will be appreciated.

Yours in Christ Jesus
Nicholas Laurienzo

Nicholas,
I think Rome's order is more like this: Faith, Justification, regeneration. They believe as Free-willers do that Faith precedes the new birth.

Brandan,
Thanks. What is the name of the thread discussing the faithfulness of Chirst?

[harald]

There is the great debate of Gal. 2:16 which reads:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (KJV)

We are either justified by our own faith as some declare, or we are justified by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Righteousness of Christ). If the later then we know we were excepted in the beloved before the foundation of the world. It is a good thing I am not depending on justification by my faith. Heaven help me!!!! (John Gipson)

The debate of Gal. 2:16 also involves Rom. 3:22 which has the identical wording in the Greek - dia pisteôs Iêsou Christou, "through faith of Jesus Christ".
A little on KJV's rendering. It adds two articles without warrant, "THE works of THE law" (thrice in this verse). Thus narrowing Paul's sense. Paul wrote "works of law". This must be understood not only to refer to works performed in relation to the Torah, but also of all and any other legal efforts on the part of men. One of the more subtle legal-effort-schemes is the common teaching that Christ-ward faith is the condition of justification (before God). Paul's formula "works of law" covers also this scheme, condemning it. KJV does not cover it by rendering "the works of the law", thereby its translators provided a cloak for their own conditionalism which was not exclusively Torah-based.
Then, "faith of Jesus Christ" is the correct rendering (the article with "faith" is not there in the Greek). Faith of Jesus Christ rather than faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The noun pistis does not shut out faithfulness, but here in context it means "faith". Faith is the root, faithfulness is the fruit or corollary. Paul points at the root, faith (of Jesus Christ). Faith of Jesus Christ does not mean faith FROM Jesus Christ. "of" here translates the genitive of Jesus. It is the genitive of possession, "Jesus Christ's faith". Any gospel with pretentions to being Paul's gospel which does not emphasize Jesus Christ's faith is not Paul's, but "another gospel". The "faith of Jesus Christ" is at the root and center of Paul's gospel. Leave out this faith or explain it amiss and what is left is another gospel.
Then, KJV unwarrantedly changed the word order in the middle, from "Christ Jesus" (all Greek texts) to "Jesus Christ". Go and learn what this means.

The "faith of Jesus Christ" equals "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22, 1:17). This may also be referred to as "the righteousness of Christ".
Paul does not teach justification before God before the foundation of the world. He teaches intimate fore-knowing (and election, and pre-determination etc.) in eternity, but not justification before God in eternity. If "God's elect" would have been justified before God in eternity then all talk about God justifying "the ungodly" is redundancy on the part of the inspiring Spirit. If they were justified in eternity then the Adam fall, as set forth by Paul in Rom. 5, means that justification was undone when they were "made (lit. constituted) sinners" and came under "condemnation". If God's elect were justified in eternity then why does Paul say "justified NOW (Gr. nun - now, presently, in the present) in his blood", Rom. 5:9 ?
No, rather it seems to me that "justification in eternity" is a doctrine contrived by carnal men who were unwilling to embrace what Paul taught on the timing of justification before God. So they came up with an imaginative figment which sounded "high" and spiritual and elevated etc. in the ears of professors like themselves. And they apparently got away with it, seen from their generally having the reputation of being orthodox men.

If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.


Harald

[Brandan Kraft]

Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.

You sure are a broken record, aren't you Harald? LOL

[jmgipson]

Then, "faith of Jesus Christ" is the correct rendering (the article with "faith" is not there in the Greek). Faith of Jesus Christ rather than faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The noun pistis does not shut out faithfulness, but here in context it means "faith". Faith is the root, faithfulness is the fruit or corollary. Paul points at the root, faith (of Jesus Christ). Faith of Jesus Christ does not mean faith FROM Jesus Christ. "of" here translates the genitive of Jesus. It is the genitive of possession, "Jesus Christ's faith". Any gospel with pretentions to being Paul's gospel which does not emphasize Jesus Christ's faith is not Paul's, but "another gospel". The "faith of Jesus Christ" is at the root and center of Paul's gospel. Leave out this faith or explain it amiss and what is left is another gospel.
Then, KJV unwarrantedly changed the word order in the middle, from "Christ Jesus" (all Greek texts) to "Jesus Christ". Go and learn what this means.

The "faith of Jesus Christ" equals "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22, 1:17). This may also be referred to as "the righteousness of Christ".
Harald

What is the force of the genitive after pistis? Is it objective or is it subjective?

What is Paul talking about? Is he telling us about the work of Christ, or the response of man?

The righteousness of Christ is His faithfulness to obedience or Active and Passive obedience. It is His perfect obedience that justifies us.


"In Gal. 3: 22 the pistis Iesou Christou is the means by which the ancient Abrahamic promise overcame the obstacle posed by the interlude of the law and was made available to all who should believe, i.e., it is not man's faith but Christ's faithfulness. In support of this interpretation we can cite Rom. 15: 8: "Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles should glorify God for his mercy." This "firmness" of Christ, in this case his faithful servitude to the will of God, is the pistis Christou which is the ground of men's confidence and trust as they seek a standing before God.

Rom. 3: 22 and 26 only repeat this exposition of the economy of salvation. The chapter begins with an assertion of the pistis theou, the faithfulness of God without doubt, over against the unfaithfulness of his people. But then, in the center of that divine operation by which God works salvation for a guilty world, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is said to be the means through which the justification or righteousness of God has been manifested to those who believe. This interpretation is to be preferred to the usual interpretation, for it makes much better sense to say that God's righteousness has been manifested by the character of Christ's work than to say it has been manifested by man's faith in Christ, for how can man's faith be said to have demonstrated God's righteousness? Rather, Christ's faithfulness, in death itself, makes possible an atoning sacrifice which redeems lost men, and thus God's way of righting wrong has been demonstrated in this age.

In Phil. 3: 9 Paul seeks a righteousness, not his own but of God, which is through the faithfulness (pistis) of Christ. That "firmness" of Christ was established in his sufferings and in his resurrection, and Paul's answering faith is in "knowing" Christ by sharing in his sufferings and in the power of his resurrection. Eph. iii. 11 also places the faithfulness of Christ at the heart of the eternal purpose of God for the reconciliation of men, and as the ground of men's boldness and access to God with confidence." (D.W.B. Robinson)

John

[jmgipson]

Also, the Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 has "the righteous will live by His faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness."

Just a side.

John

[ray kikkert]

If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.


Harald

That is "blinder theology".

Justification from eternity is indeed a truth we ought to adhere to. We rely fully on the faithfulness of Christ and that gift given to His elect alone.

If your not interested in the whole counsel of God, do not then expect us to give your exegesis the time of day.

[Brandan Kraft]

That is "blinder theology".

Justification from eternity is indeed a truth we ought to adhere to. We rely fully on the faithfulness of Christ and that gift given to His elect alone.

If your not interested in the whole counsel of God, do not then expect us to give your exegesis the time of day.

Thank you brother Kikkert for putting it so eloquently!

[Mickey]

If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.

This is like saying, "those who believe in election nullify Paul’s gospel and his teaching on justification."

and Amen to Ray's post!

[jmgipson]

If justification before God in eternity is a truth then Paul's teaching on justification before God at Christ's death is a lie. Paul did not teach two justifications before God. Those that propound justification in eternity have no use of Paul's teachings on justification, and no use of his gospel.

Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
KJV

In other words Job was justified before God's eyes. But wait, Christ hasn't died yet. What shall we do? We have two justifications by your words harold. Somehow God declared Job, and others just before Christ died. How did He do it. He did it in eternity. We were always on God's mind, known - predestined - united- justified - sanctified, all spiritual blessings were given to us in eternity. Now He brings about this plan in time.

John

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks John! Exactly! Harald cannot comprehend the eternal vital union between Christ and His people apparrantly! Either Harald outright rejects the union, or he holds to a union of Christ and unrighteous people. It's either one or the other. You pick, since you deny justification from eternity.

Here are your choices again Harald:

1. There is no eternal union with Christ and His people.
2. There is a union, but Christ is joined with unrighteous people.

Of course, you could recant what you have stated and agree to our position which is...

3. Christ was joined to His people in eternity, and they are seen as Righteous by God through that union because of Christ's perfect righteousness.

[lionovjudah]

I believe the trouble comes from looking at the word "eternity" in our linear sense of "time"

I do not believe Eternity is past tense. The Cross of Christ is the pinnacle for everything. Not creation, not the 2nd advent, but the Cross. This is where it all funnels to. So my understanding of eternal justification lies in the view that the Cross happenned historically at a specific linear time and date. This is when the blood was shed for the remission of sins. But in the eternal mind of God, this happenned as the final consumation of all events. There is no other way to explain how future sins are forgiven. Without blood there is no remission, hence His death has no beginning or end in the mind of God.

The confusion comes when looking at eternity in a linear sense. this is a mistake. We are not justified before the foundations of the world, we are justified because the cross of Christ is viewed by God as an eternal sacrafice.

This is Romes error when it comes to future sins. They fail to realize that His death is the one and final sacrafice, why? Because it is eternal, no beginning or no end

If this makes no sense to anyone else, thats ok, it makes sense to me!!!!

[Brandan Kraft]

Joe, you've nailed it. Eternity is not an extension of time, and most people including supposed predestinarians see it as such! Thank you for your observation.

[jmgipson]

I believe the trouble comes from looking at the word "eternity" in our linear sense of "time"

I do not believe Eternity is past tense. The Cross of Christ is the pinnacle for everything. Not creation, not the 2nd advent, but the Cross. This is where it all funnels to. So my understanding of eternal justification lies in the view that the Cross happenned historically at a specific linear time and date. This is when the blood was shed for the remission of sins. But in the eternal mind of God, this happenned as the final consumation of all events. There is no other way to explain how future sins are forgiven. Without blood there is no remission, hence His death has no beginning or end in the mind of God.

The confusion comes when looking at eternity in a linear sense. this is a mistake. We are not justified before the foundations of the world, we are justified because the cross of Christ is viewed by God as an eternal sacrafice.

This is Romes error when it comes to future sins. They fail to realize that His death is the one and final sacrafice, why? Because it is eternal, no beginning or no end

If this makes no sense to anyone else, thats ok, it makes sense to me!!!!

Good description Joe. Everytiime I start pondering eternity I get brain freeze.

[ray kikkert]

Good description Joe. Everytiime I start pondering eternity I get brain freeze.

Better to have brain freeze and consider in awe the depth and wonder of what Christ has done , the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world...... than to have a brain fart and think that we are justified by our faithfulness

"Unto you therefore which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, A stone of stumbling , and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people; that ye shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" 1 Peter 2 : 7-10

[harald]

I like how you exegeted this John. It wasn't Christ's "personal faith" in whatever that saved us, but it was His faithfulness to His promises. That is what an older debate is about. (Brandan)

Well, I know not the gospel you espouse, Brandan. It was precisely Christ's own human faith which justified God's chosen ones. "(through) faith of Jesus Christ" equals "(through) the obedience of the One" (Rom. 5:19). Your reasoning, viz. "Jesus Christ's faithfulness to His promises (made in eternity in the capacity of eternal God, I assume)", does not harmonize with "the obedience of the One". Because the "obedience", the meek and compliant attentive hearkening (Gr. hup-akoê), of Jesus Christ, was not to or towards Himself or His own promises. It was his hearkening to God in Heaven. It was "the hearing of faith", "the obedience of faith". And how does Isaiah's "by his knowledge" harmonize with your definition of pisteôs Iêsou Christou as "His faithfulness to His promises"? But rather "by his knowledge" harmonizes beautifully with "through faith of Jesus Christ". Isaiah prophecied that Messias was to justify many "by his knowledge". Paul simply echoes this great truth by his words "through faith of Jesus Christ". But what more, in Phil. 3:8 Paul wrote "the knowledge of Christ Jesus", beautifully matching the words of Isaiah 53, "by his knowledge", and further in v. 3:9 of Philippians Paul defines "the knowledge of Christ Jesus" by the words "faith of Christ". Paul further defines this in Rom. 4:13 as a "faith-righteousness". All of Romans 4 serves to testify to the central role of "faith", there defined as believing God (not as allegiance to oneself), in the business of justification before God of God's elect. Namely the central role of Jesus Christ's God-ward faith, not the sinner's. Your gospel will obviously have nothing of this. If you are a stranger to Jesus Christ's faith how can you have any proper insight into His theanthropic Person? If you know not what kind of faith Jesus Christ had then how can you possibly understand the true nature of Christ-ward faith?



Also, the Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 has "the righteous will live by His faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness."

Just a side (John)

Paul in Rom. 1:17 confirms that "faith" is the sense of pistis when it comes to 17b, "ho dikaios ek pisteôs" in the Pauline gospel. In 17a "from within faith to faith", not "from within faithfulness". Twice the formula "ek pisteôs" in this verse, linked by kathoos - "in keeping with how.. (written)". Therefore "from within faith" and "from within faith". Thus lit. "the righteous from within faith", which is Christ. Jesus Christ was the righteous from within faith, therefore he was adjudicated to life, death could not hold Him, and, accordingly, on the third day God the Father raised Him from among dead ones.


Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
KJV

In other words Job was justified before God's eyes. But wait, Christ hasn't died yet. What shall we do? We have two justifications by your words harold. Somehow God declared Job, and others just before Christ died. How did He do it. He did it in eternity. We were always on God's mind, known - predestined - united- justified - sanctified, all spiritual blessings were given to us in eternity. Now He brings about this plan in time.

John

It does not say Job was justified before God. Job lived during "the forbearance of God", Rom. 3:25. This was a time period during which God was forbearing with the sinful acts (hamartêma, Rom. 3:25) of elect gentiles and Jews. Mark that Paul uses the noun "passing by" in Rom. 3:25. Job lived in a time when God in His forbearance was passing by the sinful acts having occured previously during said forbearance of God. God waited until 29 AD. Then He dealt, in Christ, with all sinful acts having previously taken place during His forbearance. Job was not perfectly righteous in the sight of holy God in his own lifetime. The blood of Christ had not been shed. Christ had not brought in "everlasting righteousness".
The uprightness of Job related to his character righteousness. He was a regenerate man, thus possessed of character righteousness. But this was of course not a justifying righteousness.

On another note. How can you say "God's elect" were justified in eternity? Justified from what? There was no sin charged to their account in eternity, since there was no law, cp. Rom. 5:13. Paul says explicity that sin is not imputed when there is no law. Sin was charged to their account in time, and then they stood in need of justification before God.


Harald cannot comprehend the eternal vital union between Christ and His people apparrantly! (Brandan)

Brandan, unless I mistake I have believed eternal vital union longer than you.

On another note. It is interesting that you are aiming at going to a conference where at least two men are preaching who quite vehemently oppose justification in eternity, T David Simpson and Ken Wimer. Try go to these with your three options and correct them, and see what response you get.



Harald

[jmgipson]

Better to have brain freeze and consider in awe the depth and wonder of what Christ has done , the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world...... than to have a brain fart and think that we are justified by our faithfulness

"Unto you therefore which believe He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, A stone of stumbling , and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people; that ye shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" 1 Peter 2 : 7-10

I agree Ray!!

[lionovjudah]

Harald:

A question. What is your opinion when scripture states "Faith in Christ" or "Faith in God"

What is this faith spoken of myriads of times in the writ?

I know ones theology should never decide the translation. Paul in Romans 3, according to the KJV says "in" in vverse 22 then of in verse 26

In tyhe LITV Mark 11;22 makes no sense. it says Faith OF God. This is a theological impossibility

[jmgipson]

It does not say Job was justified before God. Job lived during "the forbearance of God", Rom. 3:25. This was a time period during which God was forbearing with the sinful acts (hamartêma, Rom. 3:25) of elect gentiles and Jews. Mark that Paul uses the noun "passing by" in Rom. 3:25. Job lived in a time when God in His forbearance was passing by the sinful acts having occured previously during said forbearance of God. God waited until 29 AD. Then He dealt, in Christ, with all sinful acts having previously taken place during His forbearance. Job was not perfectly righteous in the sight of holy God in his own lifetime. The blood of Christ had not been shed. Christ had not brought in "everlasting righteousness".
The uprightness of Job related to his character righteousness. He was a regenerate man, thus possessed of character righteousness. But this was of course not a justifying righteousness.

So are you saying then that Job, David, Abraham were not justified until the cross? So when David said in Romans 4:6-7 ..blessed is the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness... God couldn't actually impute this righteousness yet because Christ had not shed blood? You speak riddles to me harold. It does say Job was upright or righteous and just before Almighty God. All these men were justified in God's eyes because of the surety of His precious Son and what He would accomplish. All these men knew it and David knew how blessed he was that God had imputed righteousness to him.

Eph. 1:4 "According as he hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:"

[Brandan Kraft]

Harald makes God subject to eternal law philosophy. The idea that God's view of things is dependent upon temporal activities as if He is merely an observor is ludicrous! The saints presently aren't glorified in heaven yet, but from God's perspective that has already been accomplished as well!

Rom 8:30, (KJV), Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.