Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[footwasher]

Robrecht wrote:

This sounds like Luther's sola fide, which I think is too simplistic. I believe more in the judgment of God, who will, according to Paul's gospel, judge the secrets of people through Christ Jesus. I do not know that much about Luther's sola fide theology, so I could be wrong about it being too simplistic. If anyone can better explain his sola fide theology, I am quite willing to be corrected.

We could do a study and point out what Luther found objectionable in the church, what Wright found objectionable with Luther and what we can discover was wrong with Wright , but its probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Originally Posted by footwasher
The point is that the situation was fluid and transitional.

I have no difficulty with that point, but that is different from the point you were making earlier. Have you abandoned your previous point about Gentile Christians in Rome feeling they had special favor from God based a questionable interpretation Suetonius? I believe that most situations are fluid and transitional, but I am not so sure that Paul was being critical of Gentile Christians who supposedly felt they had special favor from God because they were not, unlike the Jews, expelled from Rome. Your earlier idea is possible, of course, but I don't see it in the text of Paul, and I am reluctant to interpret a text based on assumptions regarding the historical situation and the supposed thoughts of some of Paul's listeners, people whom Paul had never even met. Do you understand my view that the text itself is more important and more reliable than possible historical reconstructions?

Paul's concern was that the knowledge of some might harm the faith of weaker brothers in some situations, but I'm not sure that Paul considered all Jewish Christians to be weaker brothers whom he would admonish because of an immature view of the Law. Did Paul automatically have this attitude toward all Jewish Christians such that this would influence how he would write to the Jewish Christians in Rome whom he had never met. It is certainly possible that Paul, himself a Jewish Christian, had such a view of all Jewish Christians, even those he had never met, but, again, I am reluctant to make this assumption an overly important factor in interpreting an ancient text.

The entire law is abolished? The law against rape, murder, lying, stealing, adultery? Is the law really abolished? I don't think so.

Once you digest that, you can chew on more material that Paul provides to reinforce that teaching. If someone's tyrannical spouse dies then one doesn't commit adultery if one gets married again to a gracious partner. That's what happened when the Law was nailed to the cross. Mankind was married to Mr Law, but when Mr Law was nailed to the cross, executed, mankind was free to remarry, to Mr No Law! Should mankind then sin? No-oooo! Because Mr No Law not only offered protection from prosecution, he also offered retraining, towards employment in the task of restoring of Creation:

Romans 6:*1What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin.
******8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Originally Posted by footwasher
How? Well if a condition was brought about where immunity was suddenly given to you to sin with impunity, without suffering the consequences of the law, what would you call it? Abolish, that's what.

What?

Romans 7:6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Originally Posted by footwasher
If the age for minors was raised from 18 to 78, then theoretically you could murder without being under the jurisdiction of the law.

What?

Hey! Raise the age to 20 and the 18 year old perp is not culpable, lower it to 16 and he is liable to be prosecuted under the law meant for adults. Nothing changed in the person or his action, but the outcome changed... all because of a change in the terms and conditions, in the interpretation of the law and the administration of that interpretation.

Originally Posted by footwasher
Similarly, if the contract keeping you under the jurisdiction of the law was torn up, you could sin without being culpable. Well that's what happened when the parties to the contract died. The contract was torn up. Jesus took on the identity of humankind and died, thus nailing law to the cross. We died with Him, so there was no one to participate in the contract, making it null and void.

So we can now murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, without any concern about this being against God's law?

That's what Paul says, but he also says, "Why would you want to do that, since it is a dead end? Instead look at the new opportunity present with the same atonement, entering God's rest, taking a break from self effort, riding on Christ's coat tails, the manifestation of the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham, through faith in Christ, loyalty to Him."

Originally Posted by footwasher
Now that the law has no hold on us should we then sin?

No, we have learned our morality from God's law and from our own experience, and the experience of our ancestors. I think the law should still have a hold on us. The law is a good thing. It was not just part of God's plan for helping theologians to develop a theory of atonement.

Forget the law, eschew pietism! The law has no power over us!

Originally Posted by footwasher
You think the faithfulness of Christ causes the righteousness of God to be manifested in the lives of believers. It doesn't. Its faith in Christ which does. You are debating the issue. Using Romans. 'Nuff said.

No, I am merely trying to better understand the text of Paul's letter to the Romans. I think Paul's perspective is more like Christ's own faithfulness, the faith that originated with Christ's faithfulness, has shown us the true righteousness of God, a righteousness of faith, obedience, loyalty, that we too are invited to share and put into practice in our own lives of love and witness to the truth. Our faith in Christ should bear witness to our lives of faithfulness to God, our love of neighbor, even enemies, and respect for all.

Nope. In the letter to the church in Rome, Paul wants both Jews and Gentiles to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusions over God's temporary rejection of Jews . There was a purpose for the rejection and that purpose was so that God's original intention of choosing people based on loyalty, exemplified in Abraham's loyaty, to partner Him in restoring creation, that opportunity, that gift, could be fulfilled.

Originally Posted by footwasher
See above.

What do you want me to see above?

The reasoning for finding your view faulty.

Originally Posted by footwasher
When Paul says live, he means entering God's rest, which is a state that awaits a day:

Hebrews 4:9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Christ was very clear, even John the Forerunner, the greatest of all those born of women, did not have the opportunity to enter that rest, not even Abraham.

So what do you think Paul meant about Abraham having believed God and being accounted as righteous before God? Are you talking about some kind of soul-sleep? I'm having trouble following how this is supposed to relate to the subjective/objective question in Romans 3,22

Abraham's righteousness was his ritual clean-ness, his acceptability before God, meaning now he could enter the camp. But he lived under law, whose result was a dead end, and not under grace, gift, which is life in Christ, a share in Him, in the task of restoring creation, what Talmud calls tikkun olam, life in Christ effected by the atonement, so that we could become the righteousness of God, just as Christ was the righteousness of God, through loyalty to Christ.

Originally Posted by footwasher
One more time, Rom 3:9 and Rom 3:22 are parallels.

C'mon, Romans 3:22 is a reiteration of Romans 3:9. which is a reiteration of ch 1 and 2. Look at the text:

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

What does "already" mean, if not that the teaching was expressed previously?

;)

Originally Posted by footwasher
You said it was more than merely fulfilling the law.

If Christ fulfilled the Law, that was all that was needed, He didn't need to do more.

Is this supposed to relate to your critique of my use of the word 'even'? Jesus needed to be faithful and obedient to the Father. That was more than merely following the law. We have a different idea of what it means for Jesus to have fulfilled the law, but that would be better discussed in the context where Jesus says he came to fulfill the law.

I do not limit Christ's faithfulness to 'faithfulness to the law' and have already said that, obviously, Paul is speaking here about God's righteousness being made manifest apart from the law. I see no reason to limit Paul's meaning here to 'God's righteousness in a believer's life. I think the righteousness of God is not merely how it is manifested in a believer's life. The righteousness of God is a topic as broad as our whole understanding of (and complete inability to comprehend) God. Justification is part of this discussion, but it does not exhaust all of what Paul is saying here about God's righteousness and the redemption that he has accomplished through Jesus Christ. The faithfulness of Jesus Christ to God has been given to us so that we too might have the same kind of faithfulness toward God. In this sense our present way of being faithful, of trusting God, of believing in Christ, this life of faith in Christ that we lead, in fact, originated with Jesus' own faithfulness to God.

See what I have posted above about how Christ's atoning work , God's law keeping action, by making sin He who had no sin, so that the righteousness of God may be manifested in our lives, through faith in Him.

[robrecht]

Robrecht wrote:

We could do a study and point out what Luther found objectionable in the church, what Wright found objectionable with Luther and what we can discover was wrong with Wright , but its probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Yes, but regardless of the fact that it is beyond the scope of this thread, and you do seem to keep bringing up points that are extraneous to the question of the subjective/objective genitive in Rom 3,22, I think this is an important point worth responding to. I agree with many, most, if not all, of Luther's criticisms of the church of his day. That is completely beside the point. I've never studied his theology in detail, and, as I said, I am more than willing, even happy to be corrected and taught more about this, but my impression is that his theology of sola fide seems like an overly simplistic reading of St Paul's letters. And that does seem to be part of your interpretation of this passage.

As for Wright, I have read only a little bit about his preference for the subjective genitive and only relatively recently. While we may agree broadly, I am not dependent upon his position. But, in light of what I just said about Luther and this passage, I would be very interested in your presentation of Wright's view of Luther, and how you would critique Wright on this point.

I will try and pick out the most important points from your posts to respond to, but time limitations will keep me from responding to the entirety of your posts at this time. Hope you understand.

[robrecht]

Why did you question, look askance at the ability of the faith of sinners to make manifest God's righteousness in their own lives?

I did not do this, ever! As I think I've already said. I think you still have not understood my views. No doubt, because I may not have explained them well. But I wonder if you might also be making some assumptions based on other matters.

[robrecht]

https://bible.org/article/interview-...tual-criticism

I agree with Wallace's point about Westminster, textual criticism, and historical probabilities. Should I assume you do as well? Does this have anything to do with the question of the subjective/objective genitive in Rom 3,22? As for various theologies, please recall my point that theologies, right or wrong, should not read into a text, but one should strive to understand the text and therefore the theology of its author. Once that has been accomplished with a reasonable level of certainty, then one might adopt or adapt that theology to new questions. If the church cannot come to agreement on the meaning of a text, well then, we have discussions like these. But I still maintain that one's personal theology or confessional theology should not be read into or assumed to be the meaning of a text.

I'm curious why you chose not to even remotely address the point about subjective genitive of origin.

[robrecht]

... God's righteousness is displayed in the lives of people who hear with faith, demonstrate loyalty!

Yes, indeed. I think I have already said that we are in close agreement on this point.

Then I erred in pointing out a translation mistake that did not exist. My apologies.

No problem.

Yet you seemed to question the efficacy of the faith of those who have fallen short of the glory of God.

Nope, never have I questioned the efficacy of faith. That seems to be merely an assumption of yours.

The Law brought death, a dead end, a realization that that which was meant to bring life was not accessible, do-able. But to those who were loyal, to those who did not murmur against God,

To some were given forgiveness and assurance of a future redemption ...

The law brought death with the revelation of a dead end, the inability to do it and gain life. Christ's atoning work brought life to mankind. Since He identified with mankind, He was the first resurrection fruit, the first beneficiary of the atonement, and now a Man sits at the right hand of God.

I agree, but my question was why did you say that through atonement the Law brought death? Did not the atonement bring new life with God?

******
Romans 5:1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

I, of course, do not disagree with this. My point was that God's grace initiates righteousness and faith in our lives. Do you not agree with sola gratia as proclaimed in the Catholic church at the Council of Orange in 529 against the semi-Pelagians, and later adopted by the reformers?

In him we become the righteousness of God:

2 Corinthians 5:21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We are found in Him through loyalty, faith

Of course, I agree with this also, but I would emphasize, as does Paul, that we become the righteous(ness) of God through Christ.

It's certainly different from the evangelical perspective.

Indeed, but perhaps not as different as you seem to assume.

***
ἄ

Why the alpha?

[robrecht]

some, being accustomed to the idol until now,

I don't think you should assume that Paul is speaking of all Jews or only of Jews when he speaks of those who are weaker. Not above where I have bolded the phrase "some, being accustomed to the idol until now." Surely that seems to indicate that Gentiles also may be understood here.

[robrecht]

... Mankind was married to Mr Law, but when Mr Law was nailed to the cross, executed, mankind was free to remarry, to Mr No Law! ...

Well if a condition was brought about where immunity was suddenly given to you to sin with impunity, without suffering the consequences of the law, what would you call it? Abolish, that's what. ...

Similarly, if the contract keeping you under the jurisdiction of the law was torn up, you could sin without being culpable. Well that's what happened when the parties to the contract died. The contract was torn up. Jesus took on the identity of humankind and died, thus nailing law to the cross. We died with Him, so there was no one to participate in the contract, making it null and void.

robrecht: "So we can now murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, without any concern about this being against God's law?"

That's what Paul says, but he also says, "Why would you want to do that, since it is a dead end? Instead look at the new opportunity present with the same atonement, entering God's rest, taking a break from self effort, riding on Christ's coat tails, the manifestation of the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham, through faith in Christ, loyalty to Him." ...

Forget the law, eschew pietism! The law has no power over us!

Would you call your view theoretically antinomian?

Jesus seems to have a very high regard for the moral commandments of the law. Do you think his attitude changed after his crucifixion?

[robrecht]

Nope. In the letter to the church in Rome, Paul wants both Jews and Gentiles to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusions over God's temporary rejection of Jews . There was a purpose for the rejection and that purpose was so that God's original intention of choosing people based on loyalty, exemplified in Abraham's loyaty, to partner Him in restoring creation, that opportunity, that gift, could be fulfilled.

How does this disagree with ANYTHING I have said?

The reasoning for finding your view faulty.

Originally Posted by footwasher
When Paul says live, he means entering God's rest, which is a state that awaits a day:

Hebrews 4:9So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Christ was very clear, even John the Forerunner, the greatest of all those born of women, did not have the opportunity to enter that rest, not even Abraham.

Two questions. One, again, How does this disagree with ANYTHING I have said? Two, are you proposing some kind of soul-sleep here?

Abraham's righteousness was his ritual clean-ness, his acceptability before God, meaning now he could enter the camp. But he lived under law, whose result was a dead end, and not under grace, gift, which is life in Christ, a share in Him, in the task of restoring creation, what Talmud calls tikkun olam, life in Christ effected by the atonement, so that we could become the righteousness of God, just as Christ was the righteousness of God, through loyalty to Christ.

Read Galatians. Paul was well aware of the fact that the Law came long after Abraham. Why do you say that Abraham lived under the law. Or are you saying that no laws whatsoever, not just the Law of Moses have been rendered null and void, serving no good purpose whatsoever? Paul tells us to respect civil authorities. Interesting that you seem to be saying that those who engage in תיקון עולם are sharing in the life of Christ.

[robrecht]

C'mon, Romans 3:22 is a reiteration of Romans 3:9. which is a reiteration of ch 1 and 2. Look at the text:

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

What does "already" mean, if not that the teaching was expressed previously?

;)

You do realize that Rom 3,9 comes before Rom 3,22, right? You were presumably be trying to show that Rom 3,22 is no more than a reiteration than Rom 3,9. I think it is more than that. Sure, 'all those believing' includes both Jews and Gentiles, but Rom 3,22 is not merely speaking about being under sin, but of the righteousness of God being made manifest in the faith(fullness) of Christ Jesus, the faith that originated with Christ Jesus, and which is now shared by all believers.

[robrecht]

Do you imagine, by some wild and bizarre interpretation of anything at all that I have said, that I have ever said anything even remotely similar to 'the law makes perfect by sacrifices offered continually year by year'???

[footwasher]

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_BR_Sh...tification.htm

Summary
Luther erred in labelling Judaism legalistic.

Wright errs in translating pistes Christeou as faithfulness of Christ. God's righteousness (being in the right by keeping His promise to Abraham by making the One who had no sin to be sin) is not effected in a believer's life by Christ's faithfulness, but by loyalty. It is through loyalty that a faithfulness that is like Christ's is effected in the life of the believer.

2 Cor 5:21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Romans 1:17
For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Please let me answer all your posts before posting again.

Yes, but regardless of the fact that it is beyond the scope of this thread, and you do seem to keep bringing up points that are extraneous to the question of the subjective/objective genitive in Rom 3,22, I think this is an important point worth responding to. I agree with many, most, if not all, of Luther's criticisms of the church of his day. That is completely beside the point. I've never studied his theology in detail, and, as I said, I am more than willing, even happy to be corrected and taught more about this, but my impression is that his theology of sola fide seems like an overly simplistic reading of St Paul's letters. And that does seem to be part of your interpretation of this passage.

As for Wright, I have read only a little bit about his preference for the subjective genitive and only relatively recently. While we may agree broadly, I am not dependent upon his position. But, in light of what I just said about Luther and this passage, I would be very interested in your presentation of Wright's view of Luther, and how you would critique Wright on this point.

I will try and pick out the most important points from your posts to respond to, but time limitations will keep me from responding to the entirety of your posts at this time. Hope you understand.

[footwasher]

I did not do this, ever! As I think I've already said. I think you still have not understood my views. No doubt, because I may not have explained them well. But I wonder if you might also be making some assumptions based on other matters.

[robrecht]

Please let me answer all your posts before posting again.

Why? I don't think that would be helpful for three reasons. One, because of my busy schedule, I have to post when I am able; otherwise, I will never be able to respond to all your extraneous ideas. I would prefer to try to keep you on topic as much as I can. Two, if you continue to misrepresent my views (not purposefully), I insist on being able to correct you. Three, this will be a much more efficient way of engaging in this conversation rather than letting your continuing to compound post after post based on a misunderstanding.

[Paprika]

For the last time, translating pisteos Christou as "faith(fulness) of Christ" instead of "faith in Christ" is not belittling the faith of sinners.

[footwasher]

When Dr Wallace talks about probability, he is talking about trends. Is pistes christeous faith in Christ or faithfulness of Christ or even a genitive of origin, the faith that comes from Christ. The NT writers make several references to the ascendancy of faith and fulfilment over self effort and failure, so we see that trend. It helps in avoiding the agonizing that the uncertainty you have brings.

I agree with Wallace's point about Westminster, textual criticism, and historical probabilities. Should I assume you do as well? Does this have anything to do with the question of the subjective/objective genitive in Rom 3,22? As for various theologies, please recall my point that theologies, right or wrong, should not read into a text, but one should strive to understand the text and therefore the theology of its author. Once that has been accomplished with a reasonable level of certainty, then one might adopt or adapt that theology to new questions. If the church cannot come to agreement on the meaning of a text, well then, we have discussions like these. But I still maintain that one's personal theology or confessional theology should not be read into or assumed to be the meaning of a text.

I'm curious why you chose not to even remotely address the point about subjective genitive of origin.