|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jun 9, 2009 20:34:25 GMT -5
Justification by Works: A man is brought before a court accused of a crime. After providing evidence that he had not committed the crime, the court justifies him.
Justification by Grace: A man is brought before a court accused of a crime. Evidence is brought forth that he is guilty of the crime and deserves punishment. But He does not receive what He deserves, His punishment is set aside, He is pardoned.
God mercifully pardons (justifies by His grace) those who turn from their sins and trust in Jesus Christ. The only way to be justified by works in the court room of God is by living your entire existence without ever sinning at all. But if a person has sinned just once, they need to be justified by grace and mercy through repentance and faith.
|
|
|
Post by joeldad on Jun 11, 2009 10:19:16 GMT -5
Amen! And if another party entered the court room and "paid the fine" that was due, that would be justification by works of law. No pardon (forgiveness) would need to be granted.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jun 11, 2009 10:47:47 GMT -5
Yes releasing a person because their debt has been paid, or releasing a person because they are innocent, is justice not mercy.
Mercy is pardoning an unpaid debt. Mercy is releasing the guilty.
Justification by works is when an individual is released because they are innocent. They deserve to be released, it is justice.
Justification by grace is when an individual is pardoned even though they are guilty. They deserve to be punished but their punishment is withheld, this is mercy.
|
|
miche
New Member
... among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life ... (Philippians 2:15
Posts: 47
|
Post by miche on Jun 13, 2009 1:27:05 GMT -5
This just makes sense to me. So what seems to be the big hangup for non-calvinists when it comes to this governmental view of the atonement(is that what you would call it?)? I don't see what the problem is.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Jun 13, 2009 18:57:44 GMT -5
Actually, not all Calvinists have a problem with the governmental view of the atonement. Jonathon Edwards Jr for example taught the governmental view. Especially in the 1800's some Calvinists held to the governmental view. They were called "New School Calvinists" and their theology was referred to as "New England Theology".
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jun 16, 2009 17:06:22 GMT -5
Actually, not all Calvinists have a problem with the governmental view of the atonement. Jonathon Edwards Jr for example taught the governmental view. Especially in the 1800's some Calvinists held to the governmental view. They were called "New School Calvinists" and their theology was referred to as "New England Theology". Reminds of of a ministry I used to know called New England Outreach.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Jul 1, 2009 23:52:24 GMT -5
God's grace is that He created a way to have sin covered. That process is first shown in the garden with the first sacrifice. The sacrificial system forshadows the means by which God created a way to cover the sin of man.
A man goes into court and the prosecutor is bringing evidence into court that will prove the mans guilty; but your lawyer erases his evidence at great cost to himself because he sees you are truly sorry and seek to not do it again. Without the evidence, the prosecutor has no witness against you and you are released.
That there is any way to escape the consequences of sin, which is death, is God's grace. Since all have sinned, no one can ever be justified by works except Yeshua Himself who was without sin. He was without sin because He kept the whole Torah. Sin is the trangression of the Torah, or instructions of God.
|
|