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

[robrecht]

Robrecht wrote:

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.

Absolutely untrue. You should probably stop trying to express what I believe or what my phrasing suggests. I do not assign less importance to loyalty. I don't think faith starts the process, not because we are sinful, but because God started the process, not us. And it is not merely to Christ to whom we are loyal but God who sent his Christ and who raised him from the dead. As Paul, affirms when twice quoting Gen 15:6: ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. . See also πιστεύοντι ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ in Rom 4,5. We trust in the one who justifies the impious. It is not our faith that is said here to justify us, but we have faith in the one who justifies us. Rom 4,11 speaks of Abraham's righteous of faith, but notes that it was accounted to him as righteousness. By whom? God, of course. One cannot speak of our righteousness apart from God. In Rom 4,17 Abraham believes in God, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Likewise, righteousness will be reckoned unto us, who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead: ἀλλὰ καὶ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Again, in Rom 9,13, it is God who lays the stone in Zion upon whom we trust. It is God who saves those who believe (1 Cor 1,21). It is God's Word that is at work in believers (1 Thes 2,13). Please note, I do not mean to imply that you do not believe these things, but to clarify for you what I believe so that you will not continue to misconstrue and misrepresent what I believe.

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 divesture members, as well as 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.

Would you please try to answer my question clearly and concisely? Do you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

[footwasher]

Absolutely untrue. You should probably stop trying to express what I believe or what my phrasing suggests. I do not assign less importance to loyalty. I don't think faith starts the process, not because we are sinful, but because God started the process, not us. And it is not merely to Christ to whom we are loyal but God who sent his Christ and who raised him from the dead. As Paul, affirms when twice quoting Gen 15:6: ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην. . See also πιστεύοντι ἐπὶ τὸν δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἀσεβῆ in Rom 4,5. We trust in the one who justifies the impious. It is not our faith that is said here to justify us, but we have faith in the one who justifies us. Rom 4,11 speaks of Abraham's righteous of faith, but notes that it was accounted to him as righteousness. By whom? God, of course. One cannot speak of our righteousness apart from God. In Rom 4,17 Abraham believes in God, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Likewise, righteousness will be reckoned unto us, who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead: ἀλλὰ καὶ δι᾽ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Again, in Rom 9,13, it is God who lays the stone in Zion upon whom we trust. It is God who saves those who believe (1 Cor 1,21). It is God's Word that is at work in believers (1 Thes 2,13). Please note, I do not mean to imply that you do not believe these things, but to clarify for you what I believe so that you will not continue to misconstrue and misrepresent what I believe.

Would you please try to answer my question clearly and concisely? Do you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

I showed you when you use "even though " that it indicates a surprising factor that causes God's righteousness to be manifested.

Faith can be expressed with confession or deeds.

Abraham did nothing in Genesis 15:6

[robrecht]

I showed you when you use "even though " that it indicates a surprising factor that causes God's righteousness to be manifested.

Faith can be expressed with confession or deeds.

You only showed that you misconstrued my argument, which I have repeatedly tried to clarify for you.

Can you please answer my question regarding James?

[footwasher]

You only showed that you misconstrued my argument, which I have repeatedly tried to clarify for you.

Can you please answer my question regarding James?

You shouldn't have used "even though".

Abraham did nothing in Genesis 15:6.

[robrecht]

You shouldn't have used "even though".

Abraham did nothing in James 15:6.

I could not have foreseen that you would misconstrue these words out of context, especially since I had cautioned you not to do so, and in explicit contradiction of so many of my statements to the contrary, or that you would continue to do so after so many corrections and clarifications.

Please answer my question about James. Only a 'yes' or 'no' is required. There is no James 15,6 so evidently you are speaking of Genesis 15,6. Do you also disagree with James' understanding of Abraham's justification?

[footwasher]

I could not have foreseen that you would misconstrue these words out of context, especially since I had cautioned you not to do so, and in explicit contradiction of so many of my statements to the contrary, or that you would continue to do so after so many corrections and clarifications.

Please answer my question about James. Only a 'yes' or 'no' is required. There is no James 15,6 so evidently you are speaking of Genesis 15,6. Do you also disagree with James' understanding of Abraham's justification?

The rules of grammar contradicts you. Whoever uses "even though" introduces the idea of an unexpected, unfit faith.

James understands Abraham as having expressed his loyalty. Against such, there is no law.

[robrecht]

The rules of grammar contradicts you. Whoever uses "even though" introduces the idea of an unexpected, unfit faith.

I can't believe you still want to argue about this when I've already said long ago that I could have expressed my idea more clearly and did so several times since. There is no difficulty around the idea of "even though" introducing an element of the unexpected. The problem is that you applied that in a much different sense than intended and in direct contradiction to what I had been saying so many times prior to and even after my corrections and clarifications. I listed 14 elements in the immediate context that all point toward the expectation that Paul is speaking of how God has manifested his righteousness in Christ Jesus, and I would therefore indeed consider it a surprise that Paul was trying to say that nonetheless we should understand our faith in Christ rather than Christ's faithfulness to be the (past tense) manifestation of God's righteousness that God is referring to in 'the faith of Jesus Christ'. When you can take the meaning of these words in their most natural sense to relate clearly to the 14 elements in the immediate context that lean toward God, I would be surprised if we are nonetheless supposed to choose a much less natural sense of 'the faith of Jesus Christ'. I do not consider our faith to be unfit, but I do think that Paul is speaking (primarily) of God and his Christ having manifested the righteousness of God in this context, but yes this faith is also for all who believe. If you leave out the first 14 elements of my argument, you distort the meaning of the manner in which the fifteenth element was introduced as a surprise. Grammar should be applied to my list and not to your mash-up of two sentence fragments quoted out of context.

James understands Abraham as having expressed his loyalty. Against such, there is no law.

Nonresponsive. Let me repeat my first question (which you have avoided answering four times already) and clarify my second question.

1. Do you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

2. Do you agree with James' understanding of Abraham's justification when he says (NRSV, instead of your amplified version):

"Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilledby works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not Rahab ..."

[footwasher]

Robrech wrote:

Originally Posted by footwasher
The rules of grammar contradicts you. Whoever uses "even though" introduces the idea of an unexpected, unfit faith.

I can't believe you still want to argue about this when I've already said long ago that I could have expressed my idea more clearly and did so several times since. There is no difficulty around the idea of "even though" introducing an element of the unexpected. The problem is that you applied that in a much different sense than intended and in direct contradiction to what I had been saying so many times prior to and even after my corrections and clarifications. I listed 14 elements in the immediate context that all point toward the expectation that Paul is speaking of how God has manifested his righteousness in Christ Jesus, and I would therefore indeed consider it a surprise that Paul was trying to say that nonetheless we should understand our faith in Christ rather than Christ's faithfulness to be the (past tense) manifestation of God's righteousness that God is referring to in 'the faith of Jesus Christ'. When you can take the meaning of these words in their most natural sense to relate clearly to the 14 elements in the immediate context that lean toward God, I would be surprised if we are nonetheless supposed to choose a much less natural sense of 'the faith of Jesus Christ'. I do not consider our faith to be unfit, but I do think that Paul is speaking (primarily) of God and his Christ having manifested the righteousness of God in this context, but yes this faith is also for all who believe. If you leave out the first 14 elements of my argument, you distort the meaning of the manner in which the fifteenth element was introduced as a surprise. Grammar should be applied to my list and not to your mash-up of two sentence fragments quoted out of context.

*21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

The most natural sense of the text is this:

But now, without involving the law, the way of getting God's approval has been revealed, confirmed by Scripture, this way being the way of getting approval through loyalty to Christ, required for all believers, both Jew and Gentile, because both are sinners.

[robrecht]

The most natural sense of the text is this:

But now, without involving the law, the way of getting God's approval has been revealed, confirmed by Scripture, this way being the way of getting approval through loyalty to Christ, required for all believers, both Jew and Gentile, because both are sinners.

Let me know if you ever come up with any specific arguments that relate directly to the Greek text or Greek grammar.

Commandments have nothing to do with this question. We're not talking about works of the law, as Paul might say.

We're talking about what James said. Why won't you simply say that you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

[footwasher]

Originally Posted by footwasher
The most natural sense of the text is this:

But now, without involving the law, the way of getting God's approval has been revealed, confirmed by Scripture, this way being the way of getting approval through loyalty to Christ, required for all believers, both Jew and Gentile, because both are sinners.

Let me know if you ever come up with any specific arguments that relate directly to the Greek text or Greek grammar.

I've already informed forum members that I use seven or eight languages a day, cycling through them depending on who I am with. I have an enquiring mind and tend to work out the idiosyncrasies of languages rather effectively, such that when I take up studies of new languages I tend to get right up there with the leader and begin to assist in the teaching process, leading my Greek teacher to suspect I had been concealing credit hours on the language. I also tend to get into the meta of the process and explore why languages develop the way they do, why some languages morph from subject verb object order to subject object verb order right in front of your eyes as some eastern languages like Mandarin is doing, why some chose a declension system and others a word order system to figure out who is doing what to whom: All the more developed languages have less specialised components! All very fascinating, but I began to lose interest in language as a principal tool in hermeneutics after several discussions with friends about its value in the interpretational process. This after topping all my Greek classes. Following topping in English (not my native language), French, Gulf and Mugharaib Arabic, Swedish, and six or seven dialects of Asian languages.

Koine Greek is a common form of Greek, vulgata. One friend felt deep sadness that the Lord's words were recorded in the koine, with its high incidence of irregularities, compared to the Classical Greek he knew and loved. Forming views based on an unstable version of a language is like building your house upon sand. Accounting for the numerous interpretational options available for your choosing.

The other problem is methodology. If you adopt common sense realism as a methodology, a very common system in Western hermeneutics, not only is your foundation unstable, so is your structural framework.

This is just a gist of the difficulties that the student encounters in the task. Anyone not aware of a bit of the magnitude of those difficulties is just flying blind.

In view of this, I have chosen a different system, which I call pattern recognition, since the intent and content of the text is repeated in the different texts, displaying a unity, a commonality that, if you know what you're looking for, is easy to identify and extract. Something like this is being used in the various efforts to extract intelligence from electronic communication to identity security threats.

What helps me in coming out successfully in discussions is that I can not only knock out the opposing view (which is easy, any fool can question the opposing view), I can also provide a better interpretation of the text (which takes some chops).

Bottomline, I can't see what you claim to see in the text, because I don't see it any where else, but I can see my view popping up in several different places in the text.

Aren't you trying to prove that the commandments aren't abolished? That James includes being doers of the law along with having faith ?

Robrecht wrote:

Quote
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?
............

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.

You seem to have shifted into a different view of what the requirement is:

Robrecht wrote:

Commandments have nothing to do with this question. We're not talking about works of the law, as Paul might say.

We're talking about what James said. Why won't you simply say that you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

James and Paul both agree that salvation is by hearing with faith.

[robrecht]

All very wonderful, but like I said above, let me know if you ever come up with any specific arguments that relate directly to the Greek text of Romans or Greek grammar in general.

Aren't you trying to prove that the commandments aren't abolished? That James includes being doers of the law along with having faith ?

Robrecht wrote:

You seem to have shifted into a different view of what the requirement is:

Robrecht wrote:

James and Paul both agree that salvation is by hearing with faith.

No. I did indeed question your view of the law being annulled, which, if memory serves me correctly (and it often does not), you declined to answer.

Here, however, I've been trying to get you to answer a different question relating to the letter of James: Do you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

If memory serves me correctly, you've now avoided this question five times. Why?

[footwasher]

http://www.academia.edu/526783/Towar...in_Rom_3.21-31

Potato potahto...

James teaches that salvation is by loyalty plus demonstration of that loyalty:

Quote
Second, note that in very few cases is this form of pistis, as meaning a proof, in view. The meaning does give us a clue as to the nature of other meanings. It is often used as a noun to refer to the Christian "faith" as a set of convictions. In far many more cases the meaning intended is in the sense of faithfulness, or loyalty as owed to one in whom one is embedded for service (in this case, the body of Christ).

This now leads to an expansion of the pistis concept as derived from deSilva. As deSilva shows, the relationship between the believer and God is framed in terms of an ancient client-patron relationship. As God's "clients" to whom he has shown unmerited favor (grace), our response should be, as Malina and Neyrey frame it, a "constant awareness" of prescribed duties toward those in whom we are indebted (God) and the group in which we are embedded (God's kin group, the body of Christ).

www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.php

All very wonderful, but like I said above, let me know if you ever come up with any specific arguments that relate directly to the Greek text of Romans or Greek grammar in general.

No. I did indeed question your view of the law being annulled, which, if memory serves me correctly (and it often does not), you declined to answer.

Here, however, I've been trying to get you to answer a different question relating to the letter of James: Do you agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον;

If memory serves me correctly, you've now avoided this question five times. Why?

[robrecht]

Potato potahto...

James teaches that salvation is by loyalty plus demonstration of that loyalty:

I think that means you now agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

[footwasher]

I think that means you now agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone?

Let's parley. I'll agree to your "faith is not alone", if you'll agree to my " the law is now abolished".

[robrecht]

Let's parley. I'll agree to your "faith is not alone", if you'll agree to my " the law is now abolished".

You either agree with James (and me) or you do not. Personally, I take my faith too seriously to make such trades, but if you want to start answering my questions about your view of the law being annulled, I'll listen.

Perhaps, you think that the law is nullified because we are not saved by works of the law, but that is not Paul's view (nor mine):



Or perhaps you think that the messianic law of love and freedom excludes the importance of even the moral law? As far as I can see, neither Jesus nor Paul (nor I) believe that.

τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι.

Do you think that τέλος here means 'end' in the sense of annulment?