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

[hedrick]

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

Remember, Paul didn't say we're saved by faith alone. He said we are justified by faith alone. I've come to accept what several Pauline experts say, that for Paul we are justified by faith but judged by works. Aside from the fact that it's a good interpretation of Paul, it's the only way to be consistent with Jesus' teachings on judgement. This doesn't mean that God forgives us from pure grace and then expects us to keep up the good work on our own. Those whom he justifies he also supports in their growth as Christians. But still, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say that we're saved by faith alone. Having been called as Jesus' followers for no good reason other than that God loves us, we are expected to respond to God's love by showing it to others. Salvation includes both.

[robrecht]

Remember, Paul didn't say we're saved by faith alone. He said we are justified by faith alone. I've come to accept what several Pauline experts say, that for Paul we are justified by faith but judged by works. Aside from the fact that it's a good interpretation of Paul, it's the only way to be consistent with Jesus' teachings on judgement. This doesn't mean that God forgives us from pure grace and then expects us to keep up the good work on our own. Those whom he justifies he also supports in their growth as Christians. But still, I wouldn't say it's accurate to say that we're saved by faith alone. Having been called as Jesus' followers for no good reason other than that God loves us, we are expected to respond to God's love by showing it to others. Salvation includes both.

I agree with what you are saying here, for the most part, but still I am not willing to say that James is wrong when he says that a person is not justified by faith alone:

"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."

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;

Do you think James was wrong? As I said long ago, I think Paul is better understood as saying that we are not saved by works of the law, which is not in contradiction to James who also agrees that the royal (ie, messianic) law is a perfect law of liberty, yet one that requires works (ποιητὴς ἔργου), and calls us to 'fulfill' this law (νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν), by which we will be judged (ποιεῖτε ὡς διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας μέλλοντες κρίνεσθαι).

[footwasher]

I've been saying all along that James taught we are saved by the right type of loyalty, the one that is demonstrated by actions.

What I object to is you seem to have used the teaching to smuggle in need to observe moral law. Abraham attempted human sacrifice, Rahab betrayed her own countrymen.

I have no objection to midrash, but none of this explains why you refuse to agree with James (and me) that we are not saved by faith alone.

[robrecht]

I've been saying all along that James taught we are saved by the right type of loyalty, the one that is demonstrated by actions.

And hence not by faith alone, by a faith that is perfected by works.

What I object to is you seem to have used the teaching to smuggle in need to observe moral law. Abraham attempted human sacrifice, Rahab betrayed her own countrymen.

Every time you have tried to tell me what I seem to be saying, you've been wrong. I do believe we should observe the moral law, which I do not think has been annulled, but I never said that we are saved or justified by works of the law in the sense that Paul rightly dismisses.

[footwasher]

And hence not by faith alone, by a faith that is perfected by works.

Every time you have tried to tell me what I seem to be saying, you've been wrong. I do believe we should observe the moral law, which I do not think has been annulled, but I never said that we are saved or justified by works of the law in the sense that Paul rightly dismisses.

What are the benefits of observing the moral law?

[robrecht]

It helps one to become a more moral person, obviously, which God surely desires. It is good to be convicted of wrongdoing. And, as Paul says, the love command sums up the law; it does not abolish the moral law. Otherwise why would Jesus encourage people to follow it, why would Paul say that we do not make the law of no effect through faith but support it, and why would the author of Ephesians tell us to have no fellowship with the works of darkness and even command us to honor our father and mother, etc?

[footwasher]

Why is showing partiality committing sin?

[robrecht]

Why is showing partiality committing sin?

It is a violation of the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. If you were poor, you would not want rich people to get special treatment. If you were rich, you would be required to treat the poor as you want yourself to be treated. Thus Leviticus 19,18 is even given more importance (cf already Hillel) and is certainly not annulled.

[footwasher]

Paul said the law could not justify. If it could, Christ need not have been sent. The law could only reveal sin and inadequacy and lead to petition to God for mercy, as the Publican and Cornelius did. It was this petitioning that justified, not the law.

Do you need to petition God for mercy? If not why follow the law? It's purpose was to bring to despair.

Now that the Redeemer has been revealed, justification is available through faith, loyalty. Show loyalty and you will be made perfect, as Christ promised the rich young ruler.

Continue in faith, as Paul taught the Gentiles, because that was what kept them grafted in the Olive tree.

Showing partiality to the rich was NOT expressing loyalty to Christ, it was expressing loyalty to mammon. God can cut you out from the Olive tree, as He did Israel.

Abraham was retained because he continued in loyalty. Ditto Rahab.

[robrecht]

Paul said the law could not justify. If it could, Christ need not have been sent. The law could only reveal sin and inadequacy and lead to petition to God for mercy, as the Publican and Cornelius did. It was this petitioning that justified, not the law.

I agree.

Do you need to petition God for mercy?

Yes.

If not why follow the law?

Did you mean to say, "If yes, then why follow the law?" Otherwise I don't follow the logic of your question. Please elaborate.

It's purpose was to bring to despair.

Only in part, I think. You yourself said that the law is revelatory. Not just of sin, but also of good behavior. When the law convicts us of sin, we should repent and amend our life as far as able, trusting in God's grace. If you have committed adultury, you should try not to in the future. If you have lied, stolen, murdered, not treated your neighbor as yourself, you should try to better in the future. The law helps us to understand what sin is and therefore what we should avoid.

Now that the Redeemer has been revealed, justification is available through faith, loyalty. Show loyalty and you will be made perfect, as Christ promised the rich young ruler.

Yes, justification is available by faith, but not by faith alone, as St James tells us, but also by works. Why will you not agree with James (and me) when he clearly says that justification is not by faith alone? Jesus did not merely imply that that the rich young man should be loyal, he told him spedifically how to be loyal, ie, he told the rich young man/ruler, if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultury, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor thy father and mother, and, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And if thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, give to the poor, and come follow me. ... With God, all things are possible. (Mk 10,17-31 Mt 19,16-30 Lk 19,18-30). For those that have faith in God, one should be able to keep these commandments, even follow the evangelical counsels. Won't you agree with Jesus (and me) about this?

Continue in faith, as Paul taught the Gentiles, because that was what kept them grafted in the Olive tree.

Showing partiality to the rich was NOT expressing loyalty to Christ, it was expressing loyalty to mammon. God can cut you out from the Olive tree, as He did Israel.

Abraham was retained because he continued in loyalty. Ditto Rahab.

Maybe this will make better sense to you in the King James English:

But will thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And [thus]* the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Will you now finally agree with James (and me) that we are not justified by faith alone? Will you not even listen and agree with Jesus (and me)? One need only see that some interpretations of Paul are not in agreement with James and Jesus.

*Epexegetical in other translations.

[hedrick]

I agree with what you are saying here, for the most part, but still I am not willing to say that James is wrong when he says that a person is not justified by faith alone:

I didn't say anything about James. I think James is using justified in a different way, to refer to the fact that we are expected to live a Christian life. Paul (and Jesus) say this as well. Paul just uses justified in a different way. Jesus seldom uses it, but in the few places he uses it, one seems to be Paul's sense and the other James' sense.

Indeed even Paul has a range of meanings.

The NT isn't dogmatic theology, and doesn't typically use words in the same technical way that theologians today do.

[robrecht]

I didn't say anything about James. I think James is using justified in a different way, to refer to the fact that we are expected to live a Christian life. Paul (and Jesus) say this as well. Paul just uses justified in a different way. Jesus seldom uses it, but in the few places he uses it, one seems to be Paul's sense and the other James' sense.

Indeed even Paul has a range of meanings.

The NT isn't dogmatic theology, and doesn't typically use words in the same technical way that theologians today do.

No, you did not say anything about James, but I did, and you quoted me speaking about James, so I thought I was still allowed to speak about James. I agree that Paul and James use their language somewhat differently, but I don't think James' usage is incorrect just because it is different from Paul's, and I agree that Paul sometimes uses differing language in different places to make similar and complementary points. I also think his theology probably developed somewhat over time and obviously was sometimes addressing different issues in different communities. I agree with some who think James' examples may be specifically designed to correct some perceived misinterpretations of Paul. James would have had a somewhat different perspective as a Jewish Christian living among Jews in Jerusalem, whereas Paul, also a Jewish Christian, was very actively engaged as an apostle to the Gentiles. I would expect some differences and we see some differences between Paul and James' group that came to Antioch.

[footwasher]

Originally Posted by footwasher
Paul said the law could not justify. If it could, Christ need not have been sent. The law could only reveal sin and inadequacy and lead to petition to God for mercy, as the Publican and Cornelius did. It was this petitioning that justified, not the law.

robrech replied:
I agree.

Originally Posted by footwasher
Do you need to petition God for mercy?

robrech replied:
Yes.

Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

Originally Posted by footwasher
If not why follow the law?

robrech replied:
Did you mean to say, "If yes, then why follow the law?" Otherwise I don't follow the logic of your question. Please elaborate.

Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

Originally Posted by footwasher
It's purpose was to bring to despair.

robrech replied:
Only in part, I think. You yourself said that the law is revelatory. Not just of sin, but also of good behavior. When the law convicts us of sin, we should repent and amend our life as far as able, trusting in God's grace. If you have committed adultury, you should try not to in the future. If you have lied, stolen, murdered, not treated your neighbor as yourself, you should try to better in the future. The law helps us to understand what sin is and therefore what we should avoid.

Originally Posted by footwasher
Now that the Redeemer has been revealed, justification is available through faith, loyalty. Show loyalty and you will be made perfect, as Christ promised the rich young ruler.

robrech replied:
Yes, justification is available by faith, but not by faith alone, as St James tells us, but also by works. Why will you not agree with James (and me) when he clearly says that justification is not by faith alone? Jesus did not merely imply that that the rich young man should be loyal, he told him spedifically how to be loyal, ie, he told the rich young man/ruler, if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultury, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor thy father and mother, and, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. And if thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, give to the poor, and come follow me. ... With God, all things are possible. (Mk 10,17-31 Mt 19,16-30 Lk 19,18-30). For those that have faith in God, one should be able to keep these commandments, even follow the evangelical counsels. Won't you agree with Jesus (and me) about this?

James uses the word faith to mean "pledges of loyalty" and works to mean "demonstrations of loyalty".

No one can serve two masters. Jesus's command was for the rich young ruler to switch loyalty to become perfect, united with God. He had already become accepted, through doing all the commands and petitioning God for not having become perfected, received eternal life. This requires preunderstanding, but we know that this pre-understanding is available in the epistles, which pre-date the Gospels.

Originally Posted by footwasher
Continue in faith, as Paul taught the Gentiles, because that was what kept them grafted in the Olive tree.

Showing partiality to the rich was NOT expressing loyalty to Christ, it was expressing loyalty to mammon. God can cut you out from the Olive tree, as He did Israel.

Abraham was retained because he continued in loyalty. Ditto Rahab.

robrech replied:
Maybe this will make better sense to you in the King James English:

But will thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And [thus]* the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Will you now finally agree with James (and me) that we are not justified by faith alone? Will you not even listen and agree with Jesus (and me)? One need only see that some interpretations of Paul are not in agreement with James and Jesus.

*Epexegetical in other translations.

James uses the word faith to mean " pledges of loyalty " and works to mean " demonstrations of loyalty".

[robrecht]

Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

For forgiveness of our trespasses, as Jesus taught us to pray.

Of course, good behavior is possible. When we love our neighbor as our self, that is good behavior. When we clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick or imprisoned, that is good behavior. When you love your wife, and do not commit adultery, that is good behavior. Just because we stumble at times, and trespass, does not mean that good behavior is not also possible.

James uses the word faith to mean "pledges of loyalty" and works to mean "demonstrations of loyalty".

It seems you just cannot bring yourself to agree with James (and me) in plain English that we are not justified by faith alone, but you seem to be approximating it by implying that we are not justified by 'pledges of loyalty' alone. It seems really strange that you, a Christian, are having such difficulty here. Perhaps you could just answer James' questions in Greek, as I have put them to you already several times now:

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;

Do you know how to answer 'yes' or 'no' in Greek? Answer ναί for 'yes' and οὔ for 'no'. Anything more comes from the evil one:

You will make St James (and me) very happy if you can simply answer his questions. You won't need to find complicated translations; you can just answer in the language that James himself used.

No one can serve two masters. Jesus's command was for the rich young ruler to switch loyalty to become perfect, united with God. He had already become accepted, through doing all the commands and petitioning God for not having become perfected, received eternal life. This requires preunderstanding, but we know that this pre-understanding is available in the epistles, which pre-date the Gospels.

Are you trying to say that Jesus did not want the rich young ruler to follow the commandments?

James uses the word faith to mean " pledges of loyalty " and works to mean " demonstrations of loyalty".

Do you think James used the word 'faith' incorrectly? Maybe because his Greek was not as good as Paul's? Do you think James was trying to say that even the demons make 'pledges of loyalty' to God? Personally, I think James knew exactly what he was saying.

[footwasher]

Originally Posted by footwasher
Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

Why? Since sin has no power over us, it cannot threaten us with death. If we are not threatened, what should we petition God for?

robecht replied:
For forgiveness of our trespasses, as Jesus taught us to pray.

Scripture says there is no trespass without law. Since law has been made obsolete, no trespass exists. If no trespass has occurred, then no petition for forgiveness is required. If you have a problem with that your problem is not with me, but with Paul.

Scripture describes good behavior as full compliance with the law. Cursed are those who choose to live under law and do not observe all of it. Why put yourself under a curse. If you have a problem with this take it up with James and Paul.

You seen very fond of quoting Scriptute out of context. The text is used in context with keeping promises, not with interpreting Scripture, which can be highly nuanced:

James 5:12But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment.

Originally Posted by footwasher
No one can serve two masters. Jesus's command was for the rich young ruler to switch loyalty to become perfect, united with God. He had already become accepted, through doing all the commands and petitioning God for not having become perfected, received eternal life. This requires preunderstanding, but we know that this pre-understanding is available in the epistles, which pre-date the Gospels.

robecht replied:
Are you trying to say that Jesus did not want the rich young ruler to follow the commandments?

He wanted the ruler to beg God for mercy. You may be unaware, but observing the law does do that to a person. That was before Christ was sent to the Cross. Notice that when Cornelius petitioned God, He brought Him to receiving Christ. Those who receive Christ receive mercy. Petition for forgiveness of sin is no longer required after that.

Originally Posted by footwasher
James uses the word faith to mean " pledges of loyalty " and works to mean " demonstrations of loyalty".

robecht replied:
Do you think James used the word 'faith' incorrectly? Maybe because his Greek was not as good as Paul's? Do you think James was trying to say that even the demons make 'pledges of loyalty' to God? Personally, I think James knew exactly what he was saying.

James equates pledges of loyalty without expressions of it as the same as the cognizant response of demons: both are useless. You state that James and Paul taught different doctrine. I say that they teach the same doctrine. I don't know how you equate your view to be that of a loyal Christian.

Abraham didn't understand God, but he was loyal and jumped when God asked him to. You may not understand that God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, but what is required from you is loyalty. Understanding comes later.