"Instantaneous" Justification

I have read some from the UPCI who state that Paul received "instantaneous" justification when he "experienced" Acts 2:38.

This is another unique phrase used to caricature the biblical idea of justification. The word instantaneous is added to justification as if there were several kinds of justification.

Image via Wikipedia

The phrase “instantaneous justification” is redundant and misleading. One might be led to think there is one kind of justification that is “instantaneous” and another kind that is gradual or progressive. There is only one kind of justification in the Bible. The biblical justification is instantaneous, and does not need the unnecessary modifier. In the Bible, when a person believed God, they were justified at that moment. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3 ESV) The context of Romans 4 Paul is discussing the nature of justification as illustrated in the faith of Abraham. In Galatians, Paul teaches that NT believers are children of Abraham by faith. (Galatians 3: 6-14) When was Abraham counted righteousness? When he believed God. He did not build or work his faith up to a sufficient point to where it was enough to justify him. The Scriptures are very clear: “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” This is the pattern throughout the Old and New Testaments.

In Acts 15:9 Peter explains to the Jerusalem council how God accepted the Gentiles in Caesarea. He tells them: “God . . . made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” The Gentiles of Cornelius’ house were forgiven of their sins – justified – the moment they believed in Christ. This was verified for Peter when the Holy Spirit fell on them. This incident was not a pattern of how everyone must speak in tongues to receive the Spirit, but rather shows the inception of Gentiles being included by God into His Church. They received the Gospel, believed in Christ, and God cleansed their hearts and baptized them with His Spirit.

To confuse the matter more, some claim that Paul “experienced Acts 2:38” when he was “instantaneously justified.” The UPCI says that Acts 2:38 teaches we must be baptized by the formula “in the name of Jesus” only, in order for sin to be remitted. It also claims that Acts 2:38 teaches we must speak in tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Paul does not tell us anywhere in his epistles that he was baptized “in the name of Jesus” only. Never. Paul also never mentions or hints that he spoke with tongues as evidence that he received the Holy Spirit. It would seem that if Paul believed these were absolutely necessary for salvation, he would have devoted significant space in his writing to make that clear. But he never, one time, proposes or even alludes to the idea that speaking in tongues is the ‘initial evidence’ of Spirit baptism. Thus, there is no statement in the NT to support that Paul “experienced” Acts 2:38 as the UPCI teaches it.

View article in pdf at "Instantaneous" Justification

"Re-justification"

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

I am fascinated by the creative ways that theology students in the UPCI are handling the doctrine of justification. Because their doctrine of Acts 2:38 is-the-New Birth rejects the historic teaching of justification by faith there is an attempt to redefine or caricature justification into something the Bible or orthodox Christianity has never believed. This is leading to a few novel terms or phrases that reveal a misguided understanding of the biblical teaching of justification by faith.

One of those is the phrase “repetitive justification”. The problem with this phrase is that the word repetitive is unnecessary. Why? Because ‘repetitive justification’ is a tautology (redundant). The very nature of justification makes it necessarily ongoing. Thus, the word ‘repetitive’ is superfluous.

A companion phrase I see being used is “re-justification.” This is really another way of saying repetitive justification. Instead of re-justification a more descriptive phrase for the same idea is “transformational justification.” I posted this on my website (at: http://inchristalone.org/TheFullGospelError.htm):

Re-justification?

A gross misconception of justification is too often seen among “full Gospel” advocates. It is the mistaken idea that, after a Christian has a serious lapse of faith or behavior, that one would need to be re-justified in the form of a second conversion. At the heart of this whole issue is the question of the status of the lapsed Christian. It appeared to those of the Roman Catholic tradition that the answer is to view justification as synonymous with sanctification. This means the believer cooperates with Christ’s grace by obedience to cause justification. Justification would not occur until one is completely transformed into the image of Christ. Of course, this would only occur (except for some saints) at the Consummation. Thus, no one (again, except for a few rare saints) is truly justified in this life. In their view, the lapsed Christian would need the sacraments of Confession, Penance, and the Mass in order to be restored, if they had not committed the unpardonable sin. Justification is viewed as the process of transformation, the “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” by which a person is actually made righteous.

This teaching of “transformational justification” is the opposite of what the Reformers saw. They saw justification as the state of the believer by which he is right with God because of the merits of Christ. Rather that being made perfectly righteous, the believer is counted righteous on Christ’s behalf. This enables the sinner to enter into favor and right standing with God, so that the work of the Spirit can proceed within the one who is justified. This made it possible for the Holy Spirit to transform the believer. This transformation is called sanctification and not justification. This transformation would advance, never perfect in this life, to a perfection received at the Coming of Christ. It is justification that makes sanctifying transformation possible and not the other way around.

The error of the term “re-justification” is the same as the mistaken idea of “transformational justification.” Justification is a once-for-all-time reality that has vital, ongoing consequences in the future life of the Christian. The justified person does not need to be re-justified. Just like in our natural, physical birth, a person is born once. This event is the beginning of a long life of being a “born” person. But there is no need to be born (in the natural sense) again or repetitively. This fact is so obvious that it sounds ridiculous to even state it. But, the idea of “re-justification” is just as ridiculous as saying a person has to be repetitively born.

Justification is like regeneration. Initially regeneration occurs when God plants a new heart or nature in a sinner and makes him or her alive to God. When a person is born again they do not need to be “born again” again. The Bible teaches that when a person is born of the Spirit it is a one time event that provides a new creation or new nature that continues on in the remainder of one’s life. The presence of the new creation or nature continues through the believer’s life, but the believer does not need to be born again over and over. Therefore, using the phrase “re-justification” is as unnecessary as saying one must be “born again” again.

View article pdf at "Re-Justification"