Actually, in my view, I don’t consider the provisions of the law for the forgiveness of sins as provisions for justification. So no “temporary” justification either. For my understanding of what it means to be justified is to be declared righteous. That is, as though one has not committed any sin or wrong doing, or is excused or that what he did is in fact righteous and not sin. There is a difference between being forgiven and being justified. The law have provisions for forgiveness by the offering of a sacrifice for atonement, but does not have provisions for one to be declared righteous or to be justified.
You're making some pretty strange distinctions, and it makes defining words difficult. 1st of all, even as Christians, we are justified and are still considered to be "sinners." It's often said that "it's as if we never sinned," but I think that's just double talk. The frank truth is, we are sinners and we are regularly forgiven.
But you're right. Being forgiven and being righteous are two different things. Once we're forgiven we have to repent, or change our way of doing things. We have to go from sinners to saints, from being forgiven to being righteous.
So were people under the Law considered not just forgiven, but also righteous? Of course. Your distinction, therefore, has no relevance. They were temporarily justified under the Law.
Luke 10.29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
In this example, Jesus contrasts the one who justifies himself, and not doing right, doing things only by the externals of the Law, and the one who is justified by God for doing right. In this case, the man is not even under the Law, but does what the Law requires, and is thus justified by God.
In this case, false justification does not imply no justification under the Law is possible at all. Rather, false justification is outward observance of the Law, justifying one's self, without really doing what the Law requires.
Rom 2.13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Paul in Romans 3:20 says that the law is the knowledge of sin. His purpose in saying that is to make the Jews realize that they are guilty of sin as the Gentiles are. And that the law serves not to justify them, nor any flesh for that matter, but to make all flesh guilty before God, excusing no one.
I think, Paul said “In the sight of God”, simply to qualify the justification he is talking about in Rom.3:20. That he is not talking of being declared righteous in the sight of man.
Read the above. Justification for being righteous is indicated in Rom 2. And it is therefore assumed in Rom 3, as well. What we're talking about is a specific kind of justification--eternal justification, or Christian justification.
That the sin nature had to be dealt with by Jesus Christ is not the issue. The issue is the contention that because man had a sin nature, he is disqualified for eternal salvation.
In your view, when Christ hd not yet dealt with it, all men are disqualified for eternal salvation, and could only have temporary salvation. Now, when Christ had already dealt with it, that would mean that all men now are qualified for eternal salvation, is that right?
All men who give up their own non-faith ways to practice living in Christ exercise true repentance and are qualified for eternal life. True faith exercises the works of faith, which consist of both repentance and righteousness.
Repentance implies righteousness. Repentance unto righteousness existed under the Law, but did not achieve eternal life, due to the fact faith in Christ was not yet possible.
It was, nevertheless, genuine faith for repentance, and faith in the fact Christ *would* come. Those who genuinely believed he would come, and lived even in temporary righteousness would indeed achieve everlasting righteousness.
Further, in your view, Abraham only had temporary salvation, because his sin nature has not yet been dealt with by Christ at the time. But then Abraham died. When he died, was he still temporarily saved? What happened to his sin nature when he died? Dis he still have it with him even while his flesh or body of death is no more?
The presence of the Sin Nature, which denied men of faith eternal life did not deny them eternal life when Christ provided his atonement for sin. The presence of the Sin Nature alone does not prevent Man from obtaining eternal life forever, but only until Christ's atonement had been made. Until then, the Sin Nature stood as a reminder that it had not yet been fully atoned for.
<<<Christians are not disqualified from Salvation because we put our faith in the work of Christ's atonement for sin.>>>
Of course they are not. In fact they are already saved, aren’t they?
Yes. The Sin Nature does not prevent Christians from having eternal life, since Christ has already made his eternal atonement for sin.
<<<Abraham, and all those in the OT period, did *not* qualify for eternal life at that time. Their Sin Nature disqualified them inasmuch as God's grace did not yet legally cover their sins permanently.>>>
You said sin nature has to do with our flesh, our present bodies. When Abraham and the OT saints died, what happened with their sin nature?
The Sin Nature affects both the body and the spirit of Man. Once we die, God will eventually put off our Sin Nature completely, if not sooner at the resurrection, if we are genuine Christians. Those who die in their sins certainly retain their Sin Nature, which deprives them forevermore from eternal life.
But it isn't just because they have a Sin Nature, but also because they reject the legal basis by which that may be removed in the resurrection, and even overcome in our current lives. We sin, but we can overcome it in the present life.
And may I ask, do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered? Because it seems to me that you take it as sin.
Tong
R1779
The Sin Nature I take as a proneness to sin, and as a disease, disqualifying us from eternal life until we accept Christ as the legal basis for our Salvation. The Sin Nature is the condition we were given upon Man choosing to live a life independent of God.
This in effect created in us a new nature, disfigured and prone to doing things apart from God, and getting addicted to doing things not of God but for ourselves. Living a life independent of God's Spirit is a hybrid, double-minded life, which can only be undone by choosing to live in partnership with God today. It can't be perfect yet, but it is indeed a start.