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

[robrecht]

Hedrick, have you also considered the interpretation of a subjective genitive in the meaning of the pistis christou? I think this allows a more Jewish (and less anachronistic Lutheran) understanding of Paul.

[RBerman]

Hedrick, have you also considered the interpretation of a subjective genitive in the meaning of the pistis christou? I think this allows a more Jewish (and less anachronistic Lutheran) understanding of Paul.

Even then, Romans 3 would still be talking about the benefits of "the faith of Christ" for all who believe, so Luther's key insight would still apply.

[Paprika]

Even then, Romans 3 would still be talking about the benefits of "the faith of Christ" for all who believe, so Luther's key insight would still apply.

Was Abraham's faith "the faith of Christ"?

[RBerman]

Was Abraham's faith "the faith of Christ"?

Abraham believed Christ, in shadows.

[hedrick]

Hedrick, have you also considered the interpretation of a subjective genitive in the meaning of the pistis christou? I think this allows a more Jewish (and less anachronistic Lutheran) understanding of Paul.

I know it's a possibility. The context seems more in favor of faith in Christ. I don't doubt that Abraham was justified by a faith that wasn't explicitly in Christ. However most (though arguably not all) of Romans, and 3:24 in particular, is about faith in Christ. I don't think 3:22 alone would change the picture much.

[Paprika]

Abraham believed Christ, in shadows.

What we have in Romans 4 is that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". It isn't Christ's faithfulness or righteousness that is imputed, but Abraham's own faith that God would fufill his promises that was counted as righteousness.

[Paprika]

I know it's a possibility. The context seems more in favor of faith in Christ. I don't doubt that Abraham was justified by a faith that wasn't explicitly in Christ. However most (though arguably not all) of Romans, and 3:24 in particular, is about faith in Christ. I don't think 3:22 alone would change the picture much.

I have a question for you: what is the dikaiosune theou and how is it manifested through pistis christou?

[dacristoy]

I know it's a possibility. The context seems more in favor of faith in Christ. I don't doubt that Abraham was justified by a faith that wasn't explicitly in Christ.

Justified, to be declared right with God. Salvation is not the issue. Right with God today, wrong tomorrow, This is why Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness; which will earn rewards in heaven, not salvation. Only faith that is through Christ has the power to save...

[Paprika]

Justified, to be declared right with God. Salvation is not the issue. Right with God today, wrong tomorrow, This is why Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness; which will earn rewards in heaven, not salvation. Only faith that is through Christ has the power to save...

So are you saying that Abraham isn't saved or won't be saved?

[RBerman]

What we have in Romans 4 is that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". It isn't Christ's faithfulness or righteousness that is imputed, but Abraham's own faith that God would fufill his promises that was counted as righteousness.

I would not dispute that. My point was that even if the specific phrase pistis Christou was translated "the faith of Christ" rather than "faith in Christ" in Romans 3, the surrounding text still affirms the point you (and Luther) were making about the role of personal faith in justification.

[dacristoy]

So are you saying that Abraham isn't saved or won't be saved?

Of course not.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dicti...justification/
Accordingly it is not surprising that salvation is often viewed in legal terms. The basic question in all religion is, "How can sinful people be just (i.e., be justified) before the holy God?" Justification is a legal term with a meaning like "acquittal"; in religion it points to the process whereby a person is declared to be right before God. That person should be an upright and good person, but justification does not point to qualities like these. That is rather the content of sanctification.

Justification points to the acquittal of one who is tried before God. In both the Old Testament and the New the question receives a good deal of attention and in both it is clear that people cannot bring about their justification by their own efforts. The legal force of the terminology is clear when Job exclaims, "Now that I have prepared my case, I know I will be vindicated" ( Job 13:18 ).

We are saved by grace, not of works lest any man should boast...

[Paprika]

I would not dispute that. My point was that even if the specific phrase pistis Christou was translated "the faith of Christ" rather than "faith in Christ" in Romans 3, the surrounding text still affirms the point you (and Luther) were making about the role of personal faith in justification.

I understand that Luther argues that personal faith results in imputed righteousness, and would not agree with him on that point.

[RBerman]

I understand that Luther argues that personal faith results in imputed righteousness, and would not agree with him on that point.

Ah, I misunderstood your point. Romans 4 does not mention Christ's righteousness; its focus is on faith as the instrumental means by which those with faith are declared righteous. Jesus' role in justification is explored in Romans 5, which expands on the brief claim at the end of Romans 3 that Christ's blood, like the Ark's mercy seat, functioned to propitiate the sins of those who receive it by faith.

[hedrick]

I have a question for you: what is the dikaiosune theou and how is it manifested through pistis christou?

There maybe different shades of meaning in different places. But the basic meaning of God's righteousness is his commitment to do the right thing (as it is for humans). In the context of Romans it's his commitment to his covenant and his determination to save his people.

[robrecht]

Even then, Romans 3 would still be talking about the benefits of "the faith of Christ" for all who believe, so Luther's key insight would still apply.

Not necessarily. The subjective genitive would also affect the understanding of the immediate context as well, 'the faith(fulness) of Christ for all who believe/trust (as Christ did)'. This also fits better the parallel with Abraham and other Pauline contexts, 'though perhaps not all.