Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: blue-duncan; 1000 silverlings; wmfights; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; Alex Murphy; ...
You don't work to be innocent of a crime, either you are or you are not. You don't work to be righteous, either you are or you are not.

Amen. It was only when I finally understood what justification really was, that Christ had taken on the burden of paying for our sins so that we could actually stand "innocent" before God, that I knew the depth of the gift of God's grace.

Without that understanding, the rest is striving after false pride.

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by Zacharias Ursinus

III. IN WHAT DOES RIGHTEOUSNESS DIFFER FROM JUSTIFICATION?

Righteousness is conformity with the law; or, it is the fulfilling, of the law, or that by which we are justified before God. Justification, on the other hand, is the application of this righteousness to anyone. They differ, therefore, as shape and the application of it to an object, or as whiteness and whitening, or making white. Justification admits of the same division which we have made of righteousness, into that which is legal and evangelical. Legal justification consists in effecting in us conformity with God and the law. This is commenced in us when we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Evangelical justification is the application of evangelical righteousness; or, it is the application of the righteousness of another, which is without us in Christ; or, it is the imputation and application of that righteousness which Christ wrought out for us by his death upon the cross, and by his resurrection from the dead. It is not a transfusion of righteousness, or of the qualities thereof; but it is the acquitting, or the declaring us free from sin in the judgment of God, on the ground of the righteousness of another. Justification and the forgiveness of sins are, therefore, the same: for to justify is that God should not impute sin unto us, but accept of us and declare us righteous; or, which is the same thing, that he declare us righteous on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made over unto us. That this is the proper signification of the word is clear from these passages of Scripture in which it occurs: "In thy sight shall no man living be justified," that is, no one shall be acquitted, or declared just by inherent righteousness. "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," etc. (Ps. 143:2; 31:1-2). Paul, in accordance with this declaration of the Psalmist, interprets justification to be the remission of sins, where the word impute is repeated seven times (Rom. 4: 7).


9,971 posted on 02/10/2007 10:52:32 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9967 | View Replies ]


To: Dr. Eckleburg; blue-duncan
You don't work to be innocent of a crime, either you are or you are not. You don't work to be righteous, either you are or you are not.

A double Amen, if that's allowed.

This is where Faith really comes into play. We naturally fall away from it, that's what is meant by the heart being curved in on itself. I wouldn't believe anyone who said that they did in fact believe every second of every day; unbelief -that is falling back into patterns that any one could recognize as believing we created ourselves- infects everyone, as far as I can see. I distrust people who say they have no prejudices in much the same way.

I was just reading an article on the 'trap' that inerrancy sets for believers. Supposedly, the trap is that once doubt about inerrancy sets in a domino effect occurs causing all other doctrinal beliefs to fall away too.

I think that it will be the Evangelical Community that will reinvigorate a Christianity that has been infected by post-moderninsm or moral relativism: it takes Faith, a true belief, to stay with Inerrancy. If God can't really part the Red-Sea, because man says he can't, then the Incarnation doesn't stand much better of a chance of being truth, if what is really driving the whole thing is what is possible by what we know?

Who among us has the capacity to take any observation contra-Scripture and examine it with such expertise that not one whit of faith needs to be imparted to those who state the observation to be not only theoretic but applicable? Should I give my faith to man or to God? I'm going with God.

I just got the Complete Jewish Bible by David Stern. I don't seem to ever be able to have enough versions. I have the King James, of course, The New English, the New Jerusalem and now this one. I like knowing all the Jewish names of the prophets, you can see in some instances how they came to be called who they were called in Enlgish translation. Jeremiah is a good example of this. I have to say though, that nothing surpasses the King James for its elegance and beauty of language.

I wonder if when Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer, if he didn't give us in that all that we really needed to know even doctrinally. Being chosen seems to be in there, the rule and composition of faith and hope and charity seem to be there too.

9,995 posted on 02/10/2007 1:05:15 PM PST by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9971 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson