To my way of thinking justification = reconciliation = born again. They are simply different words or expressions for communicating the same thought.

If you see these as different things, please explain what you think justification is, and when it occurs, and the same for reconciliation and being born again.

To answer this question myself, I think these things happen simultaneously the moment a person believes in Christ, accepting Him as Savior. I'll also add that I believe "forgiveness" is also another word which could be used (that is, that "forgiveness" and "justification" are also describing the same event).

I quoted the following:



I don't think this is quoting her out of context, as I included several paragraphs, not just a sentence or a phrase.

Regarding your other question to me, I don't understand what you're asking. I agree with what Waggoner has written regarding Romans, if that helps.

δια + accusative (this is what both "for's" are) can be translated in a wide number of ways. A common "default" is "on account of."

This is quite interesting. I would not have expected "for our justification" to have been expressed this way in the Greek. (I would have expected an expression meaning "in order to bring about" as opposed to "on account of"). "Justification" could also be translated "acquittal," so the following is possible:



Not sure this makes sense though.





Yes, this is key. Waggoner especially brought out that this is what justification by faith entails.



Agreed, and this is a nice way of putting it.

The quote I referred you to had you picking out the italised phrase as in its original here and quering it, while the quote you're thinking of here had you quoting the full passage you have but adding a word "need" between "we" and "do" when asking about it which Dedication politely pointed out to you - an addition which completely changed her position. Both times you failed to note the context, which renders your repeated question a failure to read the plain text.

It was stated that Christ died for us, and we died in him and experiece that death by faith in him. Yet you asked whether we think we die or even need to die to sin??! Being kind here, you clearly didn't read the text, as it was plainly stated.

OTOH, do you believe in Christ's substitutionary death to & for sin for us, or just his demonstration of love to persuade us to believe? Justification is rebirth from death to sin, both by faith in Christ. I haven't heard you state support for us dying in Christ our substitute, by grace for faith: Do you think: did Christ die to sin on the cross for us, or just show us agape as clarification, such that by agreeing with that truth we are reconciled to him?

In what way does it change her position at all? If she said that "dying to sin is not something we do" instead of "dying to sin is not something we need to do" what's the difference? If it's not something we do, clearly it's not something we need to do. This seems like straining at gnats. It's certainly greatly overstating things to say that this completely changes her position. I disagree just as much with the statement that dying to sin is not something we do as with the statement dying to sin is not something we need to do, and for the same reason, which reason I pointed out.

All I was trying to do was understand what her point is. I rephrased what I thought she was saying in my own words, and asked if she agreed with it. Surely if there was any ambiguity in what I was asking in regards to her statements, that should have cleared up my things!



On the other hand of what? I think you mean, "additionally."

Regarding the question, it looks like both sides of the "or" have problems. Christ's substitutionary death for us is fine, but His substitutionary death to and for sin doesn't make sense to me, especially that "to" part (I can see that "substitutionary death for sin" could mean "substitutionary death because of sin -- although I think "substitutionary death for us" would have covered that -- but I don't know what "substitutionary death to sin" would mean).



Both what? You say "justification is" something, and then say "both" by faith in Christ, although there's only one subject mentioned, "justification."



I've stated many times I believe Christ died as our substitute. I just don't believe this means what Anselm or Calvin had in mind. From "The Desire of Ages"



I think this eloquently describes Christ's substitutionary death for us, and does so in a way that I am in full harmony with.

Regarding Christ's dying to sin for us, if you mean "for" as in "for our sake" or/and "so that we could follow in His footsteps and do the same" I agree with that.

The Atonement theory you are describing (in regards to the position I've been expressing) seems most akin to the Moral Influence theory, first described in detail by Abelard. What I've been describing is more the "Christus Victor" theory, which predates both Abelard's theory and Anselm's (or Calvin's). What you believe is in some respect like Anslem's and Calvin's, but in some respects different, because of the corporate aspects.

I think some might have gotten the wrong impression that you agree with the position others have expressed, when your position on this forum is unique, to the best of my knowledge. It seems very similar to Sequeira's.

As I stated, I agree with Ty Gibson's ideas on the Atonement, so I'll quote from him (after this post).

Ty Gibson on the Atonement.

The law is not an arbitrary set of rules made up at random by God to prove His authority over us, but rather a practical explanation of what love looks like in real life…Sin is anything contrary to the character of God; more specifically, anything contrary to His love…

Love is God’s law, the principle by which He lives. It is a law because it is not arbitrary, but based on reality as it is, governing life by its righteous principles. Love is the law by which God made and sustains life….

Sin is the opposite, antagonistic principle at war with the law of love. Do not view sin as merely an alternative way of living, which happens to be harmlessly different from God’s way. God’s way is the only way to live, not because He happens to be more powerful and can arbitrarily punish us if we don’t comply, but because life is actually, intrinsically present only in God’s way, which is the way of love. The problem with sin is that it is wrong, actually, essentially, inherently wrong. And it is wrong for good reason, not just because the One in charge doesn’t like it. To be sure, God does not like sin, but He doesn’t like it because of what it does to is victims, not because He is a picky control freak who decided to come up with a list of arbitrary rules to keep us under His thumb. Sin, by its very nature, is anti-life. It is intrinsically destructive. Hence the Bible calls it the “law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

Once the nature of sin is understood, it is easy to see why sin is a law of death: sin is selfishness, the antithesis of love. As such, it leads inevitably to the exclusion of, and isolation from, the sustaining love and support of all others….

Because God’s love is the law of the universe, by which He created and sustains all things, the principles of that law are designed into our very natures. Within our psycho-emotional makeup, love is encoded as the law of life. When we violate that law, a malfunction signal issues a warning in the form of guilt. That part of our minds we call *conscience* senses discomfort with sin and identifies it as a destructive virus in the computer system, so to speak. Guilt is not arbitrarily imposed by God any more than His law is arbitrary. He is the Architect of conscience, but He is not the source of guilt. He made us with the capacity to feel guilt as a merciful and wise deterrent to sin, desiring, of course, that we would never experience its pain….

While God does not desire that anyone ever experience physical pain or the psychological pain of guilt, even more so He does not desire our utter destruction. Pain is a built-in mercy mechanism intended to aid in the preservation of life. Pain is not an indication that God is exercising some kind of power above, beyond, or contrary to His law of love in order to inflict suffering as an arbitrary punishment for sin. Punishment is organic to sin itself….

It is commonly thought that the connection between sin and death is imply that if we don’t repent of our sins God will kill us. Often no actual, intrinsic relationship is discerned between sin and death. But even a casual consideration of Scripture on this point persuades us otherwise. Notice just these few examples (quotes Gal. 6:7, 8; Rom. 6:16, 21-23; Rom. 8:6; Rom. 8:13; Prov. 8:36; James 1:15)…

So, when Paul says that holiness results in eternal life, he is not removing God from the equation and making life a mere naturalistic cause and effect matter. He is simply describing *how* God gives us eternal life….

God does not threaten, “If you keep sinning, I will kill you.” Rather, He warns, “If you continue in sin, you will die,” for “sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” And so He pleads, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die …? (Ezek. 33:11). We’re caught off guard by a question like this from God. We are more inclined to ask Him, “Why do You kill?” But He points to our sin and asks us, “Why do you choose death?”…

(quotes Rom. 5:11; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Pet. 2:24, 25; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Please not the recurring point in the preceding verses:
• Through Christ we receive “atonement”; we are made one with God.
• The purpose of the substitutionary death of Christ is to “bring us to God”; not Him to us. God has demonstrated His reconciled position toward us in Christ.
• Through sin we have gone “astray”; but through the sacrifice of Christ we “are not returned” to God.
• The love of Christ, revealed in His death, causes us to cease living for self and to start living for Him; we are reestablished in the circle of selfless, other-centered love through the atoning death of Christ….

(discussing the three-party picture of the atonement)
1. The sinner, who has aroused the anger of God.
2. A wrathful God, who needs personal satisfaction that can only be derived from inflicting suffering and imposing death; only then will He even consider letting us off the hook with forgiveness.
3. A third-party victim, who is made to suffer and die as a substitute for the sinner.

There are a number of serious problems with the three-party picture, foremost of which is that it makes no legal or moral sense for an innocent third-party victim to suffer the penalty for the wrongdoer. If such an arrangement could actually satisfy God, then we would be forced to conclude that His law and His wrath are irrational and arbitrary, meaning there is no actual relationship between law and sin and death. If God’s wrath can be appeased by venting rage on an innocent third party, then it follows that there is no real problem with sin other than the fact that God doesn’t want us doing it: His law is arbitrary. Moreover, since we have failed to meet His arbitrary demands, we had better suffer ourselves or find a whipping boy to suffer in our place: His wrath is arbitrary.

Biblical Christianity proclaims, in extreme contrast to the third-party view of substitution, that God has given Himself as our Substitute, to bear our sin and its inherent, divinely-ordained penalty. Hence there are only two parties involved in the atonement: 1. The sinner, who has aroused in God a painful tension between a holy, rational anger against sin and an equally holy, rational mercy toward the sinner. 2. An infinitely just an definitely merciful God, who loves us so selflessly that He has chosen to give Himself to suffer and die as our Substitute….

So what actually happened on that hill far away as the Son of God hung between heaven and earth? Did Christ bear the wrath of God at Calvary? What part did the Father act in the suffering and death of Christ? A number of Scriptures bear a consistent testimony to answer these questions:

(quotes Acts 2:23, 24; Acts 4:24-28) ….

Did the Father cause the suffering and death of Christ?

Yes and no!

Yes, if we mean He delivered Him over to suffering and death according to His own wise purpose of grace. Yes, if we mean that the Father gave up His Son to experience the tormenting psychological agony of our guilt.

No, if we mean He acted as an arbitrary source of pain and death, as the tormentor and executioner of His Son. No, if we mean that the Father assumed a position of vicious hostility toward His Son. Christ suffered and died at *our* hands, under the burden of *our* sin, by the gracious, self-sacrificing purpose of the Father….

In holy hatred of sin and unrelenting love for the sinner, the Father handed over His Son to bear the guilt inherent in our sin and to endure the selfish, murderous rage lashing out from our sin. This fits perfectly with Paul’s definition of divine wrath. He explains that it is God giving sinners over to receive in themselves the penalty inherent in their sin (Romans 1:18-28). Christ felt “forsaken” by God, “delivered” up to suffer all that sin ultimately is, not pounced upon with hostility.

The Father was right there with His Son all along, behind the darkening veil imposed by our sin, feeling the pain of the agonizing separation.

I can love a God like that. I am so glad He is that kind of God. You can love Him too. I know you can, because your heart, like mine, yearns to love and be loved with such passionate grace.

"Dying to sin is not something we do" means it is not done by us - so it either doesn't happen at all or we have a substitute to do for us: Praise God for Jesus. "Dying is not something we need to do" is indeed obviously denying there is a requirement to die to sin!! Therefore there is no substitutionary death required for us!!! Such notions are contrary to what Dedication had already plainly stated, under option one above.

Is that clearer for you?

Christ's sacrifice for us is both the sacrifice for sin of Rom 8:3 and perfecting his personal denial of his human self as he exemplied and did die to sin. The complete sacrifice for and indeed as us, required by the law (Rom 7:4), after which we are to be living sacrifices (Rom 12:2).

The "OTOH" was informed by your apparent lack of mention of substitutionary atonement, which you are still unwilling to go into in much detail that "Christus Victor": elements of all atonement theories are helpful, and no one is probably wholly correct, as they say, but I'm not worried about scholastics on that since Christ is my Saviour from sin, being the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world.

Justification isn't purely an experience of coming into harmony with God: it is firstly a death to self and sin - mentally and naturally, that is selfishness and sinful nature. Rom 4:25 rightly lists Jesus' death first. It paves the way for our justification - also in that verse, which Jesus' righteousness is. Therefore, justification involves death to self and sin so that we can be reborn: thus baptism symbolises both events, which are separate, as life and death are separate.

Without death to sin we cannot be reborn: thus, without the first, which I hear practically nothing about from you, contrasted with Dedication's studies here on salvation, we cannot enter the kingdom. But...., you do believe in substitutionary atonement? Why not say so without being prodded? Your silence on that raises doubts that you hold that belief.

No, this wasn't very clear. However, I think Dedication can explain her meaning fine, and that I shouldn't have trouble understanding her.



I quoted several pages from Ty Gibson. I quoted from the Desire of Ages. I've written pages upon pages upon pages on the subject. Your assertion that I'm "unwilling" to go into much detail is turning a blind eye to the literally hundreds of posts I've written on this subject! Why would you do this, Colin?



Certainly being reconciled to God would involve turning away from self/sin, as these principles are contrary to agape, the defining characteristic of God's character. Here's something from "The Desire of Ages" that I've quoted many times which I think well describes the process of justification:

Sorry, Tom, I don't see you typically supporting our "dying to sin" through the death of Christ, by faith in him or any other way. A change of mind, true, is new life, but you never quote the statements of the old life being put to death, in support of Rom 6:3-11, especially v.7. Not that I've seen, and not in this thread. Quite the contrary!

Indeed, actually, on page one of this thread you allude to turning by faith to God's character revealed in Christ's death as justification as an alternative to us dying to sin by faith in Christ's death for us. That was Dedication's position, which I share with her and spotted in one plain reading of her words. You were trying to understand and offering your alternative, for her: your failure to understand is alarming.

Your alternative didn't then and doesn't generally mention spiritually dying to self/sin by faith in Christ's death for us, just a choice to switch from it to agape. That simple choice is impossible without the death you don't speak of, should it qualify for entry to the kingdom of God.

Thus, your typical, recognisable argument is changing one's attitude to God on evidence he is agape, but no death by faith to self, merely "turning away from self/sin". You never deal with that whole context - death to life, so how can you support that whole teaching? Nicodemus' lesson of being born from above goes hand in glove with the death of the mustard seed parable: you don't put the mustard seed into the glove of that lesson.

Though each word means something different,
Yes, they all work together, to completely change a persons status from "dead in sin" to "alive in Christ".

Forgiveness
'to grant pardon and give up all claim on account of an offence or debt'
Forgiveness is God absorbing the damage caused by our sin.
Forgiveness is illustrated in Christ's parable in Matt. 18. A king has a servant who apparently mismanaged a lot of the king's money. This servant's sin was against the king. The king absorbs the loss, suffering the results of the servants mismanagement, and the servant is free from his debt.

Justification
Justification includes forgiveness but goes beyond it. Not only is our sin debt absorbed by Christ, and He reaps the penalty demanded by the transgressed law, but justification is also a judicial act of God, by which, the meritorious work of Christ is credited to the account of the contrite sinner and received by him through faith.
This faith vitally unites the contrite person to Christ, his substitute and Saviour. Justification credits a person with Christ's righteousness. Justification declares the sinner is free from the demands of death by the broken law. He/she is accounted as RIGHTEOUS! By a divine reckoning one is justified.


NEW BIRTH
The birth of spiritual life. Spiritual birth isn't something one produces, it's something that happens to a person.
"Except one be born of water and the Spriit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God John 3:5



This points us again to Romans 6:3-9 and the full meaning of baptism.



--------------

Sorry -- I'm trying to answer, but I keep falling asleep!!! Answer is incomplete. Worked all day and need to sleep, I'll try again tomorrow.