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

[robrecht]

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?).

You have not harmed me. If anyone temporarily believed you, I suppose you might have harmed my reputation, but I am anonymous on this board so I hardly care about that.

Basically, I think discussions are much more enjoyable and profitable when they are friendly and polite. First, it is not helpful (nor logically valid) to engage in ad hominemad hominem elements into the discussion:
Introducing ad hominem

• fides qua

Rather than trying to seize upon an apparent mistake and ignoring or distorting the obvious or likely positions of others, I think you will enjoy these conversations more if you try to keep it friendly and polite by not introducing ad hominem elements not assuming the worst and thereby arguing against a misrepresentation.

[footwasher]

Thanks for replying.

A huge amount of misunderstanding seems to have occurred. Basically, a talking past each other.

Different conclusions were arrived at.

Would you agree that an ad hominem counter is what we call fallacy of association? I accuse you of bad character and conclude your views are wrong. It's a fallacy, because even criminals can make correct statements.

However, if I accuse you of avoiding arriving at the obvious view through stalling or pretexts of understanding a view in a way which can never have been construed, would that be an ad hom?

In my last post, it seems that I have proved that you believe that the faith of sinners is counterproductive, not only ineffective, but actually detrimental, conveyed by your use of a conjunction "despite" , "even though" the faith having a sinful origin. A view you denied.

Since I do not enjoy witnessing the inadequacies of others, I offered to stop the inquisition, the fault finding exercise.

I never intended my post to convey I do not enjoy arriving at clarity.

It occurred to me that you tend to keep arriving at these misunderstandings about my posts.

I used to conclude that you pretend to not understand, but it seems that you really do not comprehend my posts.

What a predicament! I am at a loss for words and for a solution.

What does one do if multiple posts cannot convince you that your use of "even though", despite indicates that the faith of sinners is an unexpected, illogical, detrimental cause , counterproductive to initiate God's faithfulness to manifest in our lives?

You have not harmed me. If anyone temporarily believed you, I suppose you might have harmed my reputation, but I am anonymous on this board so I hardly care about that.

Basically, I think discussions are much more enjoyable and profitable when they are friendly and polite. First, it is not helpful (nor logically valid) to engage in ad hominemad hominem elements into the discussion:
Introducing ad hominem

• fides qua

Rather than trying to seize upon an apparent mistake and ignoring or distorting the obvious or likely positions of others, I think you will enjoy these conversations more if you try to keep it friendly and polite by not introducing ad hominem elements not assuming the worst and thereby arguing against a misrepresentation.

[robrecht]

Thanks for replying.

A huge amount of misunderstanding seems to have occurred. Basically, a talking past each other.

Different conclusions were arrived at.

Would you agree that an ad hominem counter is what we call fallacy of association? I accuse you of bad character and conclude your views are wrong. It's a fallacy, because even criminals can make correct statements.

However, if I accuse you of avoiding arriving at the obvious view through stalling or pretexts of understanding a view in a way which can never have been construed, would that be an ad hom?

In my last post, it seems that I have proved that you believe that the faith of sinners is counterproductive, not only ineffective, but actually detrimental, conveyed by your use of a conjunction "despite" , "even though" the faith having a sinful origin. A view you denied.

Since I do not enjoy witnessing the inadequacies of others, I offered to stop the inquisition, the fault finding exercise.

I never intended my post to convey I do not enjoy arriving at clarity.

It occurred to me that you tend to keep arriving at these misunderstandings about my posts.

I used to conclude that you pretend to not understand, but it seems that you really do not comprehend my posts.

What a predicament! I am at a loss for words and for a solution.

What does one do if multiple posts cannot convince you that your use of "even though", despite indicates that the faith of sinners is an unexpected, illogical, detrimental cause , counterproductive to initiate God's faithfulness to manifest in our lives?

Of course I agree that your ad hominems are a logical fallacy.

I was never avoiding arriving at the obvious view or stalling or adopting any pretexts, so I think that question is somewhat impertinent. It does contain ad hominem elements, but worse than that, it is simply a false accusation.

You have never proven that I believe that the faith of sinners is counterproductive. It would be impossible for you to prove that because I do not believe that. What you believe is conveyed by my use of 'despite' or 'even though' is simply a misunderstanding of one element of my argument taken out of context. I warned you about not taking elements out of that context, and when you did so, I tried multiple times to clarify my argument for you.

There was never any need for an inquisition or fault finding exercise in the first place and it certainly did not help you to understand my view.

Which of your posts do you feel I have misunderstood? It is certainly not that I thought you did not enjoy arriving at clarity. I never said that. But I did offer my advice for why I think you might not have been enjoying this discussion.

[robrecht]

Let me try, yet again, to clarify my argument for you in a way that you will hopefully not be able to misconstrue:

Aside from the other contexts and the grammatical difficulties here:

• verbal object of a nonactive noun?
• Paul uses a preposition for an objective sense even with an active noun
• εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (3,22)

Glauben an JEsum Christum), is that:

• the righteousness of God (3,21)
• borne witness to by the law and the prophets (not by us)
• the righteousness of God (3,22)
• who justifies by his grace as a gift (3,24)
• through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
• whom God put forward as a place of mercy (3,25)
• by his blood
• to make manifest his righteousness
• because of his passing over of sins
• by means of the patience of God (3,26)
• to manifest his righteousness at this time
• to be himself righteous
• the one who makes righteous

• our faith?
• we who have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)
• whose boasting is forbidden by the law of faith (3,27)

[footwasher]

It seems to me that given all of these elements in the immediate context pointing not to us, but to God and his Christ, that we should expect the righteousness of God to be made manifest first and foremost here, not by our faith(fullness), but by God, and his Christ, whom he sent, and who was faithful to God.

The immediate context is the sinfulness of all, the need for redemption by all, through righteousness, for the Jews first, who considered everybody else as sinners:

Galatians 2:15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

And now for the Gentiles, who thought they were an superior version of God's Chosen People. Imagine, useless branches has been removed, so that superior branches could be grafted in! Paul's observation:

Romans 11:20That's right! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you remain only because of faith (trusting God, not because you worked hard, lest you boast). Do not be arrogant, but be afraid!

God's righteousness was manifested in the Old Covenant by observing of the law which could produce humility. The law revealed sin, inadequacy, when followed correctly, leading to petition. The law produced righteousness in the Publican in the Temple. Jesus said so, that it did, that he went home justified. It didn't produce righteousness in the Pharisee, because what he observed was NOT the law.

But now a different manifestation of God's righteousness presented itself, because the law was abolished. The law was no longer an available path to righteousness. This new manifestation was through faith in Christ

THESE ARE THE OPTIONS:

1.THROUGH LAW
2.THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST

His faithfulness is for all those who believe (3,22), for the righteousness of God is revealed from the faithfulness [of God, of Christ] into the faithfulness of [all] the righteous who shall live by faith (1,17). The elements in brackets are merely one possible suggestion of how we might understand this verse.

NOPE.

New Living Translation
Romans 3:21But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Mosesi and the prophets long ago. 22We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

All this does not detract from the fact that you don't believe our faith is the only cause for God's righteousness to be manifested in our lives, as opposed to our old way of doing the law , under the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant:

Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Amazing, innit? God's righteousness was manifested in the lives of the OT saint by THEIR observance of the Law. Not by the faithfulness of God . Or Christ.

Let me try, yet again, to clarify my argument for you in a way that you will hopefully not be able to misconstrue:

Aside from the other contexts and the grammatical difficulties here:

• verbal object of a nonactive noun?
• Paul uses a preposition for an objective sense even with an active noun
• εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας (3,22)

Glauben an JEsum Christum), is that:

• the righteousness of God (3,21)
• borne witness to by the law and the prophets (not by us)
• the righteousness of God (3,22)
• who justifies by his grace as a gift (3,24)
• through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
• whom God put forward as a place of mercy (3,25)
• by his blood
• to make manifest his righteousness
• because of his passing over of sins
• by means of the patience of God (3,26)
• to manifest his righteousness at this time
• to be himself righteous
• the one who makes righteous

• our faith?
• we who have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? (3,23)
• whose boasting is forbidden by the law of faith (3,27)

[robrecht]

The immediate context is the sinfulness of all, the need for redemption by all, through righteousness, for the Jews first, who considered everybody else as sinners:

Galatians 2:15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

And now for the Gentiles, who thought they were an superior version of God's Chosen People. Imagine, useless branches has been removed, so that superior branches could be grafted in! Paul's observation:

Romans 11:20That's right! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you remain only because of faith (trusting God, not because you worked hard, lest you boast). Do not be arrogant, but be afraid!

God's righteousness was manifested in the Old Covenant by observing of the law which could produce humility. The law revealed sin, inadequacy, when followed correctly, leading to petition. The law produced righteousness in the Publican in the Temple. Jesus said so, that it did, that he went home justified. It didn't produce righteousness in the Pharisee, because what he observed was NOT the law.

But now a different manifestation of God's righteousness presented itself, because the law was abolished. The law was no longer an available path to righteousness. This new manifestation was through faith in Christ

THESE ARE THE OPTIONS:

1.THROUGH LAW
2.THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST

NOPE.

New Living Translation
Romans 3:21But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Mosesi and the prophets long ago. 22We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

All this does not detract from the fact that you don't believe our faith is the only cause for God's righteousness to be manifested in our lives, as opposed to our old way of doing the law , under the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant:

Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Amazing, innit? God's righteousness was manifested in the lives of the OT saint by THEIR observance of the Law. Not by the faithfulness of God . Or Christ.

Do you have any specific counterarguments against my argument? Be careful of the New Living Translation; it is highly interpretive. Are you able to follow the original Greek?

When you say that I do not believe our faith is the only cause for God's righteousness to be manifested in our lives, don't jump to additional conclusions too quickly, eg, thinking that I am advocating 'our old way of doing the law, under the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant'. I have not said that. I was speaking of God's grace and Jesus' faithfulness being a more fundamental cause than our individual faith.

My understanding of Luther's sola fidei may not be correct, and I've said a couple of times that I would welcome correction regarding Luther's view about this, but as it has usually been presented to me by those who also believe in sola fidei, it seems too simplistic to me. It seems to be too simplistic with respect to Paul's views, but also with respect to other parts of the New Testament. I have already mentioned some of these, eg, God's judgment of all and Jesus' attitude toward the commandments, but no one has replied specifically about these yet.

I don't think I've mentioned James yet. I've heard some Christians embracing sola fidei explain James' meaning as nothing more than saying that we only know through good works that someone really does or does not really have genuine faith. Or sometimes it is said that good works are only really good when they are animated by faith. But, in my opinion, James is saying something more than that. He says that faith without works is dead. That seems to be more like the opposite sense that it is works that animate faith. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy. I think James' understanding complements that of Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fidei in Paul. It is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James.

[footwasher]

Who's arguing faith versus works? I'm pushing our faith being the only factor responsible for manifesting the correct righteousness, God's righteousness, in our lives, not God's faithfulness, which you seem to support.

So don't bring in James's teaching here, because he never teaches our righteousness is conditional on God's faithfulness.

As for Christ's attitude towards the commandments, the fact He harps on them is exactly because He believed the Jews thought God's promise to bless Abraham would automatically accrue to them. Christ and Paul were clear: rocks had more in common with Abraham than the Jews. It was those who observed the law correctly who were children of Abraham, not those who possessed the law:

Luke 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Romans 2:25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Do you have any specific counterarguments against my argument? Be careful of the New Living Translation; it is highly interpretive. Are you able to follow the original Greek?

When you say that I do not believe our faith is the only cause for God's righteousness to be manifested in our lives, don't jump to additional conclusions too quickly, eg, thinking that I am advocating 'our old way of doing the law, under the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant'. I have not said that. I was speaking of God's grace and Jesus' faithfulness being a more fundamental cause than our individual faith.

My understanding of Luther's sola fidei may not be correct, and I've said a couple of times that I would welcome correction regarding Luther's view about this, but as it has usually been presented to me by those who also believe in sola fidei, it seems too simplistic to me. It seems to be too simplistic with respect to Paul's views, but also with respect to other parts of the New Testament. I have already mentioned some of these, eg, God's judgment of all and Jesus' attitude toward the commandments, but no one has replied specifically about these yet.

I don't think I've mentioned James yet. I've heard some Christians embracing sola fidei explain James' meaning as nothing more than saying that we only know through good works that someone really does or does not really have genuine faith. Or sometimes it is said that good works are only really good when they are animated by faith. But, in my opinion, James is saying something more than that. He says that faith without works is dead. That seems to be more like the opposite sense that it is works that animate faith. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy. I think James' understanding complements that of Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fidei in Paul. It is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James.

[robrecht]

Who's arguing faith versus works?

I've been speaking about this for a while now. If you agree with me, great. You do see how it can be relevant to a discussion of justification, right?

I'm pushing our faith being the only factor responsible for manifesting the correct righteousness, God's righteousness, in our lives, not God's faithfulness, which you seem to support.

No, not quite right. I never said that God's faithfulness is the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness, and recall I agreed with your addition of 'in our lives' to your earlier statement.

So don't bring in James's teaching here, because he never teaches our righteousness is conditional on God's faithfulness.

I did not bring in James to support the importance of God's righteousness, but as part of the larger discussion. If you do not want to discuss that, that's fine. Do you also disagree with sola fide?

As for Christ's attitude towards the commandments, the fact He harps on them is exactly because He believed the Jews thought God's promise to bless Abraham would automatically accrue to them. Christ and Paul were clear: rocks had more in common with Abraham than the Jews. It was those who observed the law correctly who were children of Abraham, not those who possessed the law:

Luke 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

Romans 2:25For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

If you would like to continue our discussion of the law, perhaps you could go back over our previous discussion and see if there were some unanswered to you about your position. I could be wrong, but I think there may have been some questions that you did not answer. If not, if indeed you answered all my questions, I will only say that you have not convinced me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree with Paul when he says that we do not overthrow the law through faith, but we uphold the law. I'm sure you do too, but for me that means that the law is not nullified.

By the way, John the Baptist is speaking in Lk 3,8, not Jesus or Paul, and he is only referring to being descended from Abraham, not following the Law of Moses. And he also told the crowds to bear fruits worthy of repentance, to share with anyone who has no clothing or food, tax collectors should not steam by collecting more than the amount prescribed, soldiers should not extort money by threats or false accusations, and to be satisfied with their wages.

[footwasher]

Originally Posted by footwasher
Who's arguing faith versus works?

Robrecht wrote:

I've been speaking about this for a while now. If you agree with me, great. You do see how it can be relevant to a discussion of justification, right?

Actually, faith, loyalty to Christ leads to works, doing ministry that actually blesses the world, thorough being a source of living waters, just as Christ was a source to Israel in the wilderness, to Nicodemus in HIS wilderness.

Originally Posted by footwasher
I'm pushing our faith being the only factor responsible for manifesting the correct righteousness, God's righteousness, in our lives, not God's faithfulness, which you seem to support.

No, not quite right. I never said that God's faithfulness is the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness, and recall I agreed with your addition of 'in our lives' to your earlier statement.

Well, I'm saying our faith is the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives, in the aftermath of the Cross, whilst observing the law was the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives prior to the Cross, as opposed to the Jewish view, that possessing the law was the only factor, and as opposed to the Gentile view, that being called was the only factor, the whole topic of the book of Romans.

Originally Posted by footwasher
So don't bring in James's teaching here, because he never teaches our righteousness is conditional on God's faithfulness.

I did not bring in James to support the importance of God's righteousness, but as part of the larger discussion. If you do not want to discuss that, that's fine. Do you also disagree with sola fide?

If you would like to continue our discussion of the law, perhaps you could go back over our previous discussion and see if there were some unanswered to you about your position. I could be wrong, but I think there may have been some questions that you did not answer. If not, if indeed you answered all my questions, I will only say that you have not convinced me. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I agree with Paul when he says that we do not overthrow the law through faith, but we uphold the law. I'm sure you do too, but for me that means that the law is not nullified.

Again dedicated study will reveal that the law has been abolished. However, faith in Christ leads to abiding in Him, which is being given the rest that Joshua could not give Israel. The rest which is cessation from one's own labour. The Land was supposed to flow with milk and honey. Men would drink from wells they had not dug, eat fruit they had not planted. It was Isaiah who prophesied how it would happen:

Isaiah 55:"Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost.

Echoed by Christ:

John 7:38Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."

And Paul:

2 Corinthians 5:17Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

******20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

By the way, John the Baptist is speaking in Lk 3,8, not Jesus or Paul, and he is only referring to being descended from Abraham, not following the Law of Moses. And he also told the crowds to bear fruits worthy of repentance, to share with anyone who has no clothing or food, tax collectors should not steam by collecting more than the amount prescribed, soldiers should not extort money by threats or false accusations, and to be satisfied with their wages.

[robrecht]

... Well, I'm saying our faith is the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives, in the aftermath of the Cross, whilst observing the law was the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives prior to the Cross, as opposed to the Jewish view, that possessing the law was the only factor, and as opposed to the Gentile view, that being called was the only factor, the whole topic of the book of Romans.

Now you're adding yet another element: "in the aftermath of the Cross." Is that part of your interpretation of Rom 3,22? If so that would be another point of difference. My interpretation of the genitive there includes the cross when speaking of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Hence the perfect and aorist verbs: πεφανέρωται ... προέθετο ... But if we abstract from the text, and only speak of the present time, excluding the cross, I would still say that our lives of faithfulness are nonetheless a participation in and response to the grace of God.

If you had the dedication to study, you would realize that it is always sola fide ...

So you wish to imply that I do 'not have the dedication to study'. Just can't help but introduce these ad hominem elements, can you? While I suspect that I could easily prove a much greater dedication to study, I will not engage in such a tactic, and once again urge you to avoid them as well. If you cannot convince from your arguments, claims of greater scholarship will be even less convincing.

I do not disagree with any of your quotations, but I do want to draw attention to this one part (Rom 2):

... 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Notice that Paul himself recognizes that true Judaism is inward and not outward. It is not circumcision of the flesh but of the heart, by the Spirit.

Again dedicated study will reveal that the law has been abolished.

I see that you declined to comment on my allusion to Rom 3,31: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Again, I just want to focus your attention to this one element of your quotations (2 Cor 5):

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ ...

This is why I believe in the primacy of God's grace and the work of Christ, without which we could have not faith.

Do you still have nothing to say regarding the teaching of James, besides that he does not support what I in fact do not claim? In my opinion, James is saying something more than typical explanations by those who hold to sola fide. He says that faith without works is dead. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy. I think James' understanding complements that of Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fide in Paul. It is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James. Have you no response to James?

Again, I hope you realize that the deeds of Abraham were not those of one following the Mosaic law, which, as Paul stresses came some 430 years later.

However, I accept my fault of sloppy quotation. Mea culpa.

No problem.

[footwasher]

ginally Posted by footwasher
... Well, I'm saying our faith is the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives, in the aftermath of the Cross, whilst observing the law was the only factor responsible for manifesting God's righteousness in our lives prior to the Cross, as opposed to the Jewish view, that possessing the law was the only factor, and as opposed to the Gentile view, that being called was the only factor, the whole topic of the book of Romans.

Now you're adding yet another element: "in the aftermath of the Cross." Is that part of your interpretation of Rom 3,22? If so that would be another point of difference. My interpretation of the genitive there includes the cross when speaking of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Hence the perfect and aorist verbs: πεφανέρωται ... προέθετο ... But if we abstract from the text, and only speak of the present time, excluding the cross, I would still say that our lives of faithfulness are nonetheless a participation in and response to the grace of God.

When Paul says now, he means after the Cross. Count the number of times he points out what the Cross enabled:

Example
Galatians 3:5But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

All this material was available in a blog called Romans Clearing House, on TWeb. I hope it gets recovered.

Originally Posted by footwasher
If you had the dedication to study, you would realize that it is always sola fide ...

So you wish to imply that I am do not have the dedication to study. Just can't help but introduce these ad hominem elements, can you? While I suspect that I could easily prove a much greater dedication to study, I will not engage in such a tactic, and once again urge you to avoid them as well. If you cannot convince from your arguments, claims of greater scholarship will be even less convincing.

I do not disagree with any of your quotations, but I do want to draw attention to this one part:

Originally Posted by footwasher
... Rom 2,28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Notice that Paul himself recognizes that true Judaism is inward and not outward. It is not circumcision of the flesh but of the heart, by the Spirit.

Originally Posted by footwasher
Again dedicated study will reveal that the law has been abolished.
I see that you declined to comment on my allusion to Rom 3,31: "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Again, I just want to focus your attention to this one element of your quotations (2 Cor 5): 18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ ...

This is why I believe in the primacy of God's grace and the work of Christ, without which we could have not faith.

Again, the work of Christ is available to all, but effective in the lives of only those who believe.

Do you still have nothing to say regarding the teaching of James, besides that he does not support what I in fact do not claim? In my opinion, James is saying something more than typical explanations by those who hold to sola fide. He says that faith without works is dead. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy. I think James' understanding complements that of Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fide in Paul. It is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James. Have you no response to James?

James does not contradict Paul. Believe in Christ and you will manifest God's righteousness in your life. Be loyal to Christ and you will uphold the Law. The Law is now not an obligation, it is an opportunity, a privilege, to be a blessing to the world, as Christ is a blessing to the world.

Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

Being loyal is to stop following mammon and to start following Christ, by surrendering everything. Loyalty, faith, leads to upholding the law. Disloyalty is a dead end. As the Ananias Sapphira incident proved.

Hebrews 10:

[robrecht]

When Paul says now, he means after the Cross.

Of course! I do not deny that Paul is also speaking of the present time, but he is not excluding the Cross in my opinion.

James does not contradict Paul.

Please note that I did not claim that he did. I said James was complementary to Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fide in Paul, and it is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James. Have you no response to James? Please note that James does indeed say that faith without works is dead. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy.

[footwasher]

Robrecht wrote:

Originally Posted by footwasher
When Paul says now, he means after the Cross.
Of course! I do not deny that Paul is also speaking of the present time, but he is not excluding the Cross in my opinion.

Before the Cross, God's approval was on those who observed the law, were humbled and petitioned Him. Examples are the Publican and Cornelius .

After the Cross, God's approval no longer rested on law keepers. In fact Christ was of no advantage to law keepers. The cross was wasted on them. The curses that used to apply on the pagan nations involved in idolatory now applied to them, on their loyalty to law. God's approval rested only on those who were loyal to Christ.

Originally Posted by footwasher
James does not contradict Paul.

Please note that I did not claim that he did. I said James was complementary to Paul and should prevent an overly simplistic understanding of sola fide in Paul, and it is not surprising that Luther had some difficulties with James. Have you no response to James? Please note that James does indeed say that faith without works is dead. He also says that we are saved by works and not by faith alone and that those who do not show mercy will be judged without mercy.

[robrecht]

Before the Cross, God's approval was on those who observed the law, were humbled and petitioned Him. Examples are the Publican and Cornelius .

After the Cross, God's approval no longer rested on law keepers.

I think this is the only part of your post that might relate to our discussion of Romans 3,21ff. My view is that this passage is not just speaking of time after the cross but that the manifestation of God's righteousness includes also Christ's own faithfulness, which includes the cross.

So you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone? Or do you disagree by translating pistis differently in different places, sometimes as 'loyal' and sometimes as mere 'confession'?

[footwasher]

Robrecht wrote:

I think this is the only part of your post that might relate to our discussion of Romans 3,21ff. My view is that this passage is not just speaking of time after the cross but that the manifestation of God's righteousness includes also Christ's own faithfulness, which includes the cross.

As stated, God gave a way for people to receive His approval, become justified.

Observe law, fail, be humble, come to Temple, petition, go home justified, approved.

Be loyal to Christ, become justified, become united with Him, become sanctified.

I don't see where the idea that Christ's faithfulness can start the process for you appears in the text. In fact disbelief bars the effects of the atonement from benefiting a person. You see the idea because you assign less importance to loyalty. Your phrasing even suggests that it would be surprising if it was sinful faith that started the process.

Romans 3:21 announces a NEW Way to receive God's approval. Yes it was a result of God's obligation to be righteous, to honor the unconditional promise to Abraham, through giving mankind His Son Jesus, but the new Way was through faith. The build up is from doing the law, to being loyal, but the intent was never to convey God's part in the process of making available the Way. The intent may be laid out in other places in Scripture, but this is not the place.

So you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone? Or do you disagree by translating pistis differently in different places, sometimes as 'loyal' and sometimes as mere 'confession'?

The law of liberty offers freedom in its observance.

If a suzerain king mustered an army for war and turned up at a vassal lord's village for recruits and found only old men and children, he wouldn't expect the same expression of loyalty as that found in a village with many able bodied men. Expressions of support for the cause through other means receives approval too, including spreading the good repute of the cause (which can be costly and risky in other ways). Grudging meeting of requirements of the law could actually be a disloyal response.

That's why loyalty is described as upholding the law in the spirit, rather than in the letter, which would demand, say half of the male population to enlist.

That's why some traditions give equal approval to devoted service such as that from celibate and poor through divestiture members, as well as from members who share eternal benefits of the latter through giving of unrighteous mammon. Traditions are starting points: you have to understand the reasoning behind them, so I wouldn't be so quick to criticize those traditions.

I think setting off faith against works is not seen in the text, but rather grace against dessert, gift against reward, in the issue of calling.

Nobody deserved to be called, all are sinners, having fall short of the glory of God, both Jews and Gentiles, without distinction. Christ was sent as a stumbling block, so that all would be found disobedient, first the Gentile for suppressing God's revelation, then the Jews, for suppressing God's revelation.