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

[robrecht]

Originally Posted by footwasher
I repeat:

Your inclusion of the second statement indicated that a sinner's faith is not only secondary, but counterproductive.

No, it does not mean that. I've told you that several times.

robrech wrote:
Please take that up with St Paul, whom I was quoting. I think it is important to look at all of the elements of the immediate context to understand Paul's meaning.

I am exhausted with teasing out the various interpretational options afforded by your statements. In the above, is your view:

1.Robrecht said to footwasher:
You say I claim the faith of sinners is counterproductive. Paul says the faith of all is secondary, because all have sinned, so really, pistes Christou really means the faithfulness of Christ. Such a mean, low faith could hardly be the initiator of the manifestation of God's righteousness, His atoning action, in our lives. I don't makes 'em up, I only reads 'em. If you have a problem, take it up with Paul.

2.Robrecht never said to footwasher:
You say I claim the faith of sinners is counterproductive. Paul says the faith of all is secondary, because all have sinned, so really, pistes Christou really means the faithfulness of Christ. Such a mean, low faith could hardly be the initiator of the manifestation of God's righteousness, His atoning action, in our lives. I don't makes 'em up, I only reads 'em. If you have a problem, take it up with Paul.

Which is it?

Neither. I'm sure you must be exhausted, trying so hard to interpret my remarks in the worst possible light. I do not think Paul is saying our faith is counterproductive, but I do believe that in this passage he is speaking first of how the faithfulness of Christ, which originates with Christ, manifests the righteousness of God, but which is for all believers. There are numerous elements in this passage relating to God and his Christ which lead me to think that the more natural understanding of the genitive makes sense as Christ's faithfulness making manifest God's righteousness, a faithfulness that is also given to us, to all who believe. There are two elements in the passage where Paul speaks of us all as having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and our not being able to boast of God justifying us from the faith(fulness) of Christ, but in no way can this be taken to mean that our believing is counterproductive. Christ's faithfulness is for all of us who believe. Their is nothing in the text of Paul or my attempts to understand Paul's text that could be taken to mean that our believing is counterproductive. Our believing in God's righteousness certainly also manifests God's righteousness, but it is Christ and his faithfulness who first manifsted God's righteousness to us.

[footwasher]

Robrecht wrote:

No, it does not mean that. I've told you that several times.

If it did not mean that then why didn't you say so, instead of asking me to take it up with Paul.

On planet Earth, that construct conveys the meaning of:

I didnt make it up, it's what Scripture says. If you have a problem, please take it up with Paul

[robrecht]

Robrecht wrote:

If it did not mean that then why didn't you say so instead of asking me take it it up with Paul.

On planet Earth that construct conveys the meaning of:

I didnt make it up, it's what Scripture says. If you have a problem,

You said I should not have included that statement of Paul. I told you many times that it did not mean what you claimed it did. At that time I had just said: "I certainly believe God values our faith." How you interpret that to mean that I think faith is 'counterproductive' is beyond me.

[footwasher]

.

Is the above a correct record of the exchange? I need you to confirm it before making another claim of the impression I received from your subsequent statements.

[robrecht]

.

Is the above a correct record of the exchange? I need you to confirm it before making another claim of the impression I received from your subsequent statements.

Why do you need me to confirm it? If you copied them in order and didn't take anything out of context, it's correct. I'm not going to go back and check. What is the point?

[footwasher]

Is it your view that the faith being from sinners is an obstacle, and the statement does not give a reason why God's righteousness needs to be manifested in the lives of all believers, without distinction?

Why do you need me to confirm it? If you copied them in order and didn't take anything out of context, it's correct. I'm not going to go back and check. What is the point?

[robrecht]

Is it your view that the faith being from sinners is an obstacle, and the statement does not give a reason why God's righteousness needs to be manifested in the lives of all believers, without distinction?

Sin, without repentance, can be an obstacle for us, not for God. Faith, if it is genuine, is not an obstacle. I'm not sure what you're asking with your second question. What statement exactly are you referring to? Why not just say what you think and ask if I agree? Or maybe you can clarify the question for me?

[footwasher]

[footwasher]

Look, I'm not enjoying this. Let's write the whole thing off to sloppy phrasing and concentrate on the new avenues this study has opened to us, as even I worked out a few things I wasn't aware of myself before the discussion.

Thanks for that. We'll do well to give the thread and ourselves a rest and can always come back to point out clarifications needed, if necessary.

[RBerman]

I have noticed in my OT studies recently how often men are exhorted to "trust in the Lord." This seems very parallel to the thought in Romans 3 about "faith in Christ," as opposed to the faithfulness of Christ.

[Paprika]

I have noticed in my OT studies recently how often men are exhorted to "trust in the Lord." This seems very parallel to the thought in Romans 3 about "faith in Christ," as opposed to the faithfulness of Christ.

[Paprika]

It is sad to see the downturn in the tenor of conversation here.

Let's get back to constructive discussion. What do you think of my response to you on Romans 5?

[robrecht]

Look, I'm not enjoying this. Let's write the whole thing off to sloppy phrasing and concentrate on the new avenues this study has opened to us, as even I worked out a few things I wasn't aware of myself before the discussion.

Thanks for that. We'll do well to give the thread and ourselves a rest and can always come back to point out clarifications needed, if necessary.

I am always willing to forgive and forget, but I feel an obligation as a brother in Christ to submit for your consideration that you have not been enjoying this discussion because of your own behavior and rancor. If you are open to self-reflection upon this matter, I can explain from my perspective.

[footwasher]

Shoot.

I am always willing to forgive and forget, but I feel an obligation as a brother in Christ to submit for your consideration that you have not been enjoying this discussion because of your own behavior and rancor. If you are open to self-reflection upon this matter, I can explain from my perspective.

[footwasher]

Shoot.

I mean, go ahead and tell me how you were hurt.

In every crime, recovery of loss,reparation, expiation, removal of the effects, isn't enough. Propitiation, justice seen to be carried out through penalty, punishment over and above the loss, prison term or sentence to the criminal in addition to forcing him to return the stolen property, satisfies the outrage the injured party suffered, acts as a deterrent to others tempted to enact the same crime and restores order to society.

For example, Adam caused loss to God by damaging mankind, God's property. The second Adam expiated the crime by shedding blood, as enacted by the Passion, the stripes by which mankind is healed, because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Propitiation, calming down the outrage, the unquiet raised to the peace of mind and security of Creation's denizens, was made through penalizing the same second Adam, through death as a common criminal.

Therefore list out your loss (uncalled for criticism, maybe?) and the extent of your outrage (number of sleepless nights, maybe?).