12
03
2008
Posted by: carrie in Spring 2008
How is a person justified before God?:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
What is Eastern/Greek Orthodox view of justification?:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
What is the Roman Catholic view of justification?:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
What is the Protestant view of justification?:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Spring 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Powered by FireStats
March 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Session 8 Discussion Questions (The Doctrine of Justification)
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification sees justification as a process, not an event. Read Romans 5:1. How does this passage refute the idea that justification is a process?
Reply: In the English Standard Version the passage reads as follows:
Romans 5:1 ESV
(1) Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
This passage states “we have been justified,” thereby indicating that justification occurred at some point in the past. It does not say that we are currently being justified. (However, we are currently being sanctified).
2. Relate the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato (see notes) with extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (see notes). How does the first explain why the second becomes necessary?
Reply: By translation ex opere operato = “By the work performed.”
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus = “Outside the church there is no salvation.”
Ex opere operato is the Roman Catholic belief that the sacraments confer grace to the recipient by virtue of the act of administering the sacrament - regardless of whether the recipient is exercising faith or not. However, the sacrament must be administered by an official representative of the institutional church (such as a priest or bishop, etc.) According to Roman Catholicism, the institutional church is the embodiment of the universal church (or the Body of Christ). These sacraments must be administered under the auspices of the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, no ordinary individual may utilize the sacraments to confer grace upon another individual.
It necessarily follows that anyone who is not a member of the institutional church cannot be the recipient of this grace because it is only within the confines of the Roman Catholic Church that an individual can receive sacramental grace. It logically follows that non-Catholics (those outside the church) are without hope and consequently lost…
3. The Protestant view of justification teaches that justification is a forensic declaration in which a sinner is declared righteous while still in a sinning state. It is a justification in standing, not in nature, that occurs as an instantaneous event. This definition has been accused by Roman Catholics of being a “legal fiction” in which God says someone is something (justified), when in reality they are something else (sinners). How is it that Protestants can justify the teaching that we are both saints and sinners simultaneously?
Reply: The answer to this question lies in the judicial, forensic nature of God’s declaration of righteousness. This declaration amounts to a courtroom decree of “not guilty.” Those who embrace Christ by faith are declared (not made) righteous strictly based upon the merits of Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to their account. Their legal position is one of guiltlessness. Their actual condition is one of sinfulness. While positionally righteous, the believer is experientially a sinner – a sinner who continues to grow in conformity to the image of Jesus Christ (commonly referred to as progressive sanctification).
On the Day of Redemption our position in Christ and our experiential condition will converge. See 1 John 3:2 ESV. “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.”
4. Read Rom. 4:1–5. How is Abraham used as an illustration for the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith?
Reply: This passage clearly excludes works as the basis for Abraham’s justification before God. Abraham believed God would fulfill the promises He made to him, and Abraham’s faith was the instrument by which righteousness was imputed to him. I disagree with those who believe that Abraham’s faith is to be credited to his own ability to summon it by the enabling of God’s grace, and that therefore, his faith (and his ensuing faithfulness) are reckoned to be his own intrinsic righteousness in the eyes of God. To me, this new understanding of justification comes dangerously close to the Catholic concept of infused righteousness. This notion of justification is a perversion of the Reformed doctrine of imputation.
By definition the biblical doctrine of imputation signifies an alien (external, divine) righteousness conferred upon the believer by being reckoned to his account. Although Abraham was obviously not privy to all the revelation possessed by New Testament believers, he was accountable for believing in the propositional truth he possessed at the time he lived, and furthermore, he was accounted righteous on the BASIS of the certainty of the future merits of Christ – that is, the perfect, sinless life of the Messiah in conjunction with His atoning death and resurrection. The absolute certainty of these future merits was already fixed in the mind of our Sovereign God during the time of Abraham.
Finally, I conclude that faith alone is the instrument through which righteousness is conveyed to the believer, BUT EVEN FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD and not an intrinsic characteristic by which man himself can deservedly claim or warrant a declaration of righteousness by God… To say otherwise is tantamount to propagating the notion that man can warrant justification through human effort (by summoning his own faith).
5. How does the chart in the notes on imputation help to explain the Protestant view of justification?
Reply: The chart illustrates the parallelism conveyed by Romans chapter 5 between the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to his posterity AND the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and perfection to all men who embrace Him by faith.
Though we were not actually present in the Garden of Eden when Adam sinned, we share in the guilt of Adam’s original sin. We are declared to be sinners from birth and we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners simply because we sin. “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men BECAUSE ALL SINNED–” (Romans 5:12 ESV)
Likewise, although we as believers never lived the sinless life of our Saviour, even so, we are declared righteous by God, and we are treated by Him as if we had indeed lived a perfect life. Again, I reiterate - Adam’s guilt was reckoned to all his descendants, but Christ’s perfect righteousness is reckoned to all those who become children of God…
6. Read James 2:14–26. If you did not have access to any book other than James, would you believe that justification is a process or an event? Explain.
Reply: I understand that the great Martin Luther struggled with reconciling the book of James with Paul’s writings. I gather he believed that James contradicted the Apostle Paul.
Were it not for the book of Romans (and the analogy of Scripture) I would likely believe that justification is a lifelong process – perhaps only to be vindicated at the final judgment when God officially renders a verdict of justified or not justified.
However, I believe that James is using works in corroborative sense. It is works that provides the evidence of the genuineness and reality of our faith. In other words, it simply corroborates the verdict which God has already rendered in our behalf. True faith is always accompanied by works – not as the ground of justification but as a necessary consequence of genuine faith.
7. How do you reconcile what Paul says about justification in Rom. 3:28 with what James says about justification?
Reply: I believe the Apostle Paul uses the word “justification” in a judicial, forensic sense (courtroom terminology). Paul employs the term in the context of a judicial verdict of guiltlessness and a declaration of righteousness. We as believers are declared righteous based solely upon the merits of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (or reckoned to our account in bookkeeping terminology).
James used the word “justification” with a different nuance. I think James is using this term in an evidential, corroborative sense. In other words, if an individual’s claim to justification is not accompanied by the fruits of righteousness (practical holiness), then his claim is considered false because a declaration of righteousness by God is always paired with evidences of the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life. In this instance, I am not referring to positional sanctification, but rather conditional or experiential. The evidence of good works corroborates and substantiates the verdict of “justified.”
In summation, James is saying that the verdict of “justified” must in turn be justified/validated by works of righteousness in the daily life of the believer. James believes that good works are the necessary and natural consequence (but not the basis) of God’s forensic declaration of righteousness.
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Reply: The doctrine of justification seems to be very clear in Scripture. I am puzzled that the Church (Reformed) took more than 1500 years to come to a concise articulation of the forensic nature of justification. I am further perplexed that many Protestant theologians are revisiting this doctrine with a view to reintroducing many elements that were emphatically rejected by the Reformers…
____________________
Greg Eby
March 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am
1. Romans 5:1 suggests that justification is done by declaration. If we are declared righteous, than it is a singular even that is completed. This is a different position with the Roman Catholic view, that suggests that justification is a process. At what point can a person be declared righteous when it is a process? Romans 5:1 indicates that we are all ready declared righteous and that our sins are all ready forgiven.
2. The idea that one must have certain works done to be saved is compatible with the idea that a person can not have salvation outside of the church. If certain works are needed to be saved, then an arbiter is needed to determine where you stand, in this case the Roman Catholic church. So, there can not be salvation outside of the church, because you do not submit to the church’s authority to arbitrate where you are in the process.
3. The apostle Paul clearly struggled with sin after his conversion. He mentions that he does not do what he wants to do and does the things which he does not want to do. This demonstrates the conflict within him. If the apostle Paul struggled with this issue, I think it is ok for us to struggle with it as well.
4. Abraham believed, and that belief was what God used as the basis to credit Abraham with righteousness. God did not credit Abraham with righteousness based on Abraham’s works, but on his belief.
5. The chart on imputation shows that we can be declared righteous and yet remain in a sinning state, while also demonstrating the place of the cross in the process of sanctification. Imputation is a difficult concept in that we are declared righteous while still being a sinner. God has graciously declared us righteous, despite our failures.
6. The NET Bible reads in James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” If James is all I had, then it would be tough not to believe that salvation is works based. Although, their is a continual reference to faith and works working together, the overall thrust of this passage is a faith that has works.
7. I believe that the apparant differences are in how works are a product of faith. James 2:22 “You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.” This passage in James indicates to me that faith preceded works in that faith was perfected. Faith is refined by works, not vice versa.
8. Many of these issues in this lesson are some of the most controversial in the Christian church and have been for hundreds of years. Churches and demoninations have split when examining these issues. I do not know the exact answers to many of these questions. I can only point back to Christ and the gospel as my guide.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:44 am
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification sees justification as a process, not an event. Read Romans 5:1. How does this passage refute the idea that justification is a process?
Romans 5:1 speaks of justification as something that has been accomplished by faith. It speaks in past tense with finality. It also speaks of the peace we have knowing our justification is complete.
2. Relate the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato (see notes) with extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (see notes). How does the first explain why the second becomes necessary?
“Ex opere operato” means “by the work performed” and speaks of the grace administered by the sacraments. Since these sacraments are only available in the Church, anyone outside of the Church cannot receive these sacraments and therefore cannot receive the grace necessary for salvation. Thus, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”: outside the Church there is no salvation”.
3. The Protestant view of justification teaches that justification is a forensic declaration in which a sinner is declared righteous while still in a sinning state. It is a justification in standing, not in nature, that occurs as an instantaneous event. This definition has been accused by Roman Catholics of being a “legal fiction” in which God says someone is something (justified), when in reality they are something else (sinners). How is it that Protestants can justify the teaching that we are both saints and sinners simultaneously?
Romans 5:8-9 says that Christ died for us and we were justified while we were still sinners, and in Rom. 5:10 Paul says we were reconciled to God while we were enemies. The Greek word for “righteous” in the Bible is “dikaiosunee” which means to “declare righteous”. We are declared righteous while still in a state of sin, so nothing changes in our nature, but our legal standing before God changes. Roman Catholics believe graces is infused through sacraments which give the power to become justified. Protestants believe Christ’s righteousness is imputed so that God sees Christ’s righteousness when he looks at us.
4. Read Rom. 4:1–5. How is Abraham used as an illustration for the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith?
Paul points to God counting Abraham righteous because he believed God would provide him with a son and many offspring (Gen. 5:16). Paul points out that it was justification by faith alone, not because of works Abraham did. Paul shows us that if Abraham had done works to be declared righteous, God would not “credit” or “count” him righteous, since it would be “due” to him for the works. The use of the words “credit” or “count” show us God did not consider Abraham righteous because of works.
5. How does the chart in the notes on imputation help to explain the Protestant view of justification?
The chart shows Christ to be the 2nd Adam and Adam’s imputation of sin to all of mankind becomes a blessing from God. By making Adam the head of all mankind through whom sin and death come to all of us, God can send Christ as the 2nd Adam, a new head of all mankind through whom life and righteousness come to all of us. Christ lives the perfect, sinless life that Adam could not. He atones for our sins on the cross and his righteousness is imputed to us in the same way Adam’s sin was imputed to us.
6. Read James 2:14–26. If you did not have access to any book other than James, would you believe that justification is a process or an event? Explain.
Verse 24 is particularly jarring when compared to the doctrine of Sola Fide. Reading these verses alone we wold conclude that good works are a part of a genuine faith. It almost seems that James is saying that our faith is justified by works…in other words, the fruit we produce shows whether our faith is real.
7. How do you reconcile what Paul says about justification in Rom. 3:28 with what James says about justification?
Romans 3:28 and James 2:24 present in apparent contradiction that is hard to explain. However, in James 2:26, he seems to offer some clarity in saying that the works are and indication of the strength and vitality of the faith. By saying that faith apart from works is dead, James tells us he sees works as evidence of a true saving faith. Because surely a dead faith cannot justify anybody. So, James can believe that faith is what justifies us but works show us whether our faith is alive and in this way we can see by our works if we have the faith that justifies.
8. How was your thinking challenged most by this lesson?
The issue of justification by faith or by works as explained by James and Paul was the most difficult part of this lesson. The apparent disagreement between the two writers makes me want to better understand the authorial intent on this issue.
March 28th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification sees justification as a process, not an event. Read Romans 5:1. How does this passage refute the idea that justification is a process?
Romans 5:1 says “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;” It is our faith which justifies us before Him and is a one time act & final. We have peace wiht our knowledge and position of faith. Roman Catholicism utilizes the sacrament process in order for people to rely on the Church to get us to God when it should be simply our faith alone.
2. Relate the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato (see notes) with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (see notes). How does the first explain why the second becomes necessary?
The latin phrase “ex opere operato” means “by the work performed” with the idea for RC’s that grace is administered by the process of sacraments. Now, the Roman Catholic church for many years was the only way you could administer this grace (they were the only way to God) so anyone outside of the Roman Catholci Church caould not receive this grace necessary for salvation as the rules were not met (sacrements). The RC’s spoke of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” Pg. 117 workbook) which simply means that outside the institution called the Roman Catholic Church there was no salvation. My understanding from my childhood teachings is that prior to Vatican II if you left the Roman Catholic Church you lost your salvation or were condemned in some similar fashion. I don’t see outside of man’s tradition how this type of doctrine held up which is why Vatican II had to recant the original message.
3. The Protestant view of justification teaches that justification is a forensic declaration in which a sinner is declared righteous while still in a sinning state. It is a justification in standing, not in nature, that occurs as an instantaneous event. This definition has been accused by Roman Catholics of being a “legal fiction” in which God says someone is something (justified), when in reality they are something else (sinners). How is it that Protestants can justify the teaching that we are both saints and sinners simultaneously?
Christ didn’t come to save the righteous but us sinners. Clearly, Romans 5:8-11 says as much and more “Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Simply put, in Roman Catholic theology the process of working your way towards God via the sacraments takes precedence over the process of instantaneous faith & justification before Him as the Scriptures teach. Tradition and the rules of man take precdence over His word. As a “Protestant” we believe in sola scriptura and therefore we believe that Christ’s righteousness is imputed so that the Father sees His ONE and ONLY SON’s atoning work on the Cross & righteousness when He sees us just as we are: sinners in need of a Saviour. He did all the work and we can not take credit for it via sacraments.
4. Read Rom. 4:1–5. How is Abraham used as an illustration for the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith?
Abraham’s faith in God and his covenant word allowed him to get inches away from killing his own son in Genesis. Romans 4b says “his faith is counted as righteousness,” and nothing more! Works didn’t find Abraham righteous but his faith is counted as righteousness. God did all the work here..
5. How does the chart in the notes on imputation help to explain the Protestant view of justification?
First you have Adam’s sin to man; then you have Man’s sin to Christ; and finally Christ’s imputed righteousness to man. Christ atones for our sins by the way of the Cross and this event imputes (by legal declaration) his righteousness upon sinful man much in the same way that Adam’s sin was originally imputed to us.
6. Read James 2:14–26. If you did not have access to any book other than James, would you believe that justification is a process or an event? Explain.
We know from Scriptures that works are a by-product of faith and good works at the same time help your faith grow. If all I had was James I’d probably include good works as part of the process of working my way to God UNLESS someone from www.reclaimingthemind.org taught me different.
7. How do you reconcile what Paul says about justification in Rom. 3:28 with what James says about justification?
Romans 3:28 states quite clearly the issue of works and faith with the word translated apart in the ESV version of 3:28 “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. I believe that James is stating that “Faith without works is dead” to mean more of what we’ve been saying that when your faith grows so will your fruit as a natural by-product of a growing faith that justifies us!
8. How was your thinking challenged most by this lesson?
I know a lot of Roman Catholics (my own family) and sometimes I try to find the good in their justification “process” but I can’t. It is man made and sometimes I almost wish “a billion people” couldn’t be wrong….but they are. I challenge myself to find the good of it and there is some but not enough to sway me back into their fold.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Group Discussion Questions:
The Doctrine of Justification
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification sees justification as a process, not an event. Read Romans 5:1. How does this passage refute the idea that justification is a process?
Romans 5:1 places justification in the past tense, denoting a completed activity. An ongoing process would necessitate the reading, “being justified.”
2. Relate the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opera operato with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. How does the first explain why the second becomes necessary?
If Grace can only be received by the sacraments of the church and if I cannot receive the sacraments or choose to not receive them, I do not receive the Grace by which I am saved (justified).
3. The Protestant view of justification teaches that justification is a forensic declaration in which a sinner is declared righteous while still in a sinning state. It is a justification in standing, not in nature, that occurs as an instantaneous event. This definition has been accused by Roman Catholics of being a “legal fiction” in which God says someone is something (justified), when in reality they are something else (sinners). How is it that Protestants can justify the teaching that we are both saints and sinners simultaneously?
Paul handles this question quite well in Rom. 7:14-20: 14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Hebrews 12 presents the need to grow in holiness along with the demanding statement “that without holiness no one will see God.” From “Pursuit of Holiness” by Jerry Bridges: “Scripture speaks of both a holiness which we have in Christ before God, and a holiness which we are to strive after.” I Cor. 1:2 “These two aspects of holiness complement one another, for our salvation is a salvation to holiness.” “That is, we are through Christ made holly in our standing before God, and called to be holy in our daily lives.”
4. Read Rom. 4:1-5. How is Abraham used as an illustration for the Protestant doctrine of justification b faith?
It is clear that works don’t justify but that it is the gift of God. This passage is paralleled by Rom. 6:23 and Eph. 2:8-9 in speaking of the gift of God. Gal. 3:2-3 “…did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
5. How does the chart in the notes on imputation help to explain the Protestant view of justification?
I’m not comfortable with the word “imputation” but would prefer the wording of Grudem, page 723. “Justification is an instantaneous legal act of God in which He (1) thinks of our sins as forgiven and Christ’s righteousness as belonging to us, and (2) declares us to be righteous in His sight.” Further: “The verb justify in the New Testament has a range of meanings, but a very common sense is “to declare righteous”. Although Grudem later uses imputed, it is an unfamiliar term with the person with whom we seek to share the Gospel.
6. Read James 2:14-26. If you did not have access to any book other than James, would you believe that justification is a process or an event? Explain.
Probably. However, verse 17 does say “…faith, if it has no work is dead, being by itself.” This shows works not as gain merit with God for salvation, but rather, a quality of saving faith. It does show the danger of building doctrine or isolated passages without seeking the full council of Scripture. This past week our Wednesday night Bible Study was from Gal. 5:3-4. Reading that out of context or without the whole counsel of Scripture, would make one doubt eternal security or perseverance of the Saints.
7. How do you reconcile what Paul says about justification in Rom. 3:28 with what James says about justification?
Your ending to this week’s study perfectly answered this question! “It is faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves will not be alone.” I don’t work in order to be saved, but from the overflow of thankfulness in what Christ did for me, I work because I am saved.
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
I’ve read more these last two months than I can remember. Perhaps these thoughts from Millard Erickson’s “Christian Theology” are closest to mine on original sin. “What is the nature of the voluntary decision that ends our childish innocence and constitutes a ratification of the first sin, the fall? One position on this question is that there is no final imputation of the first sin until we commit a sin of our own, thus ratifying Adam’s sin. Unlike the Arminian view, this position holds that at the moment of our fist sin we become guilty of both our own sin and the original sin as well. There in another position, however, one which is preferable in that it more fully preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam, and at the same time it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time. We would in that case repent of it and might even, if there is an awareness of the gospel, ask God for forgiveness and cleansing. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. By placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having committed any sin of our own.”
May 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Session 8 – Discussion Questions
1. The Roman Catholic doctrine of justification sees justification as a process,
not an event. Read Romans 5:1. How does this passage refute the idea that
justification is a process?
Response: Romans 5:1 states, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This verse indicates that the believer is justified at some moment in the past.
2. Relate the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato (see notes) with extra
ecclesiam nulla salus (see notes). How does the first explain why the second
becomes necessary?
Response: The message implied here is that outside of the institution of the Roman Catholic Church there is no hope for anyone since the only way God’s grace can be received is through the administration of the sacraments by an official leader in the church.
3. The Protestant view of justification teaches that justification is a forensic
declaration in which a sinner is declared righteous while still in a sinning state.
It is a justification in standing, not in nature, that occurs as an instantaneous
event. This definition has been accused by Roman Catholics of being a “legal
fiction” in which God says someone is something (justified), when in reality
they are something else (sinners). How is it that Protestants can justify the
teaching that we are both saints and sinners simultaneously?
Response: Verses such as Romans 5:8-10 teach that we are justified through faith even though we are still sinners
4. Read Rom. 4:1–5. How is Abraham used as an illustration for the Protestant
doctrine of justification by faith?
Response: Paul made it clear that there was no work, ritual, or law that made Abraham righteous before God. Abrahams belief in God is what was credited to him as righteousness.
5. How does the chart in the notes on imputation help to explain the Protestant
view of justification?
Response: This chart provides a visual representation of Adam’s sin being imputed to man , thus separating man from God. Then, on the cross, man’s sinfulness is imputed to Christ which is followed by Christ’s righteousness being imputed to all who accept Christ through faith.
6. Read James 2:14–26. If you did not have access to any book other than James,
would you believe that justification is a process or an event? Explain.
Response: In the past I have known people who would pull out certain verses from this passage (i.e. 2:17 or 2:26) and argue that salvation is through works. However, my position is that James is making the point that works and good deeds are a natural overflow salvation through faith alone. Once a person not only has a knowledge of Christ’s Lordship but places his/her trust in Christ Lordship and what Christ has done for man, the natural response is a changed-heart (born-again) wanting to do good works and deeds.
7. How do you reconcile what Paul says about justification in Rom. 3:28 with
what James says about justification?
Response: James is saying that works are a natural result of or response to a person being truly justified through faith.
8. How was your thinking challenged the most by the lesson? Explain.
Response: This session has caused me to re-examine my beliefs concerning justification and helped me to better understand how to articulate what I actually believe. I know this is a divisive issues among denominations and has been handled in this class with great integrity.