Old Testament salvation

[drew]

They missed it because they did not have faith in Christ, not because they "didn't observe the Law by faith".

I had been holding the following point back but will introduce it now:

Note the distinction between the NIV rendering and the NASB rendering:

NIV:

but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

NASB:

but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works.

I am no expert in Greek or the original texts. I know that NT Wright argues that the original Greek clearly is more consistent with the NASB rendering. Note the huge, but subtle difference. The NIV translation is ambiguous as to what the bolded "it" refers to. Does the "it" refer to "righteousness (as I believe Toolman's interpretation requires) or does it refer to the "law of righteousness" which would bolster my take.

I will perhaps concede that the NIV rendering allows Toolman's interpretation to be sustained, since the "it" might not refer to any kind of keeping of the law, but rather to the attainment of righteousness, pure and simple.

But I think the NASB version, if it is indeed more true to the original Greek, really does draw a clear distinction between 2 ways of keeping the Law. Why? Because the "it" as in "they did not pursue it..." must, by rule of grammar, refer to the law. And Israel chose the "bad" way of pursuning the law. And the fact that this particular verse does not spell out that this bad way = "thinking that one is justified by ethnicity or mere possession of the Torah" does not mean that this is spelled out elsewhere in Romans. I believe that it is and may post evidence in a later post.

I think that other texts from Deuteronomy 30 strengthen the position that, with the giving of the Spirit, there is a way of keeping the law that allows us to take the justification by works criteria Romans 2 as being capable of being met by people. We then do not have to imagine that, in Romans 2, Paul is engaging in this very odd mixture of "condemnation stuff" that will judge some (e.g. verses 8 and 9 )and yet "justification by works stuff" that will acquit zero people (e.g. verse 10).

[drew]

Despite appearances, this does not force me into a "justification by human effort" position. It is through the Spirit that we are able to do the works that we do when we pursue the Law "as if by faith".

Nothing that Rome didn't claim. It is still a position which has no need of a propitiation, for an atoning sacrifice.

Not true. Where do you get the idea that my position requires no need for propitiation? I believe that I have never stated this nor have I said anything that logically requires it.

It is important to point out that just because I believe the Scriptures teach a future justification by works, this in no way requires me to believe that the atonement at the Cross is neither necessary nor fully sufficient for that justification. Please provide counterarguments if you can.

I agree with Romans 8, which I think is a perfect statement of atonement theology which is entirely consistent the "future justification by works" stuff in Romans 2 (note the stuff about "living by the Spirit")

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

I suspect that you will argue that "living according to the Spirit" is something we do as a result of a one-time fully sufficient justification. Well ,the text looks like it indeed supports that reading. But it also supports a "and that living according to the Spirit will be what justifies us" reading. However, the latter reading does not require us to have to morph Romans 2 such that the "judgement" categotry contains some people and the "justified" category contains zero people.

[drew]

The reformed position NEVER denies that sanctifying work of the Spirit in bringing forth righteous works in the believer. It does deny that those works justify us before God. Only the blood of Christ has that power. Our sin is forgiven because He paid the debt of death owed by us. The cross is a stumbling block and foolishness.

I think you draw a false dichotomy here. You appear to be arguing as if it is conceptually incoherent for us to claim that both the following statements are true:

1. We are justified in accordance with the content of our entire lives led;

2. The blood of Christ is both necessary and fully sufficient for our justification.

These can work harmoniously together, I think. I hope to try to defend this claim in another post.

[drew]

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law (Notice no distinction is made here between 2 ways of following the Law but simply the Law. Is Paul such a bad writer? )[/I] is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

Are you assuming that this righteousness (as in "righteousness of God") is the righteous status of those who fall under the blood?

If you are at all familar with NT Wright, I think you know what my response will be. This "righteousness of God" that is "apart from the Law" is not, as is commonly believed, a righteous state that is imputed to us, but is rather God's own righteousness - his covenant faithfulness.

This is, of course, not to say that we are indeed declared to be righteous. I am only saying that here, as elsewhere in Romans, Paul uses the term "righteousness of God" to refer to the covenant faithfulness of God, not our judicially declared state of righteousness.

I believe that if this view can be sustained, your objection is responded to. I cannot go into more detail now, but hope to later.

[Toolman]

Not true. Where do you get the idea that my position requires no need for propitiation? I believe that I have never stated this nor have I said anything that logically requires it.

Your atonement theory is the "moral example" or "moral enabler". There is no need for a propitiation or an atonement to pay for sins. Sins are forgiven by the person's performance and not because of a sacrifice on their part.

It is important to point out that just because I believe the Scriptures teach a future justification by works, this in no way requires me to believe that the atonement at the Cross is neither necessary nor fully sufficient for that justification. Please provide counterarguments if you can.

The cross, in your theory, is only neccessary to enable the person to earn their salvation by working for it.

It is not neccessary to actually pay the price for sins committed.

For instance, when the blood of Christ was spilt you see this as not an atoning blood for sins committed but as an enabling power whereby the person is given power over sin and because they then perform correctly God will justify them.

Here are the definitions of atonement and propitiate.

I agree with Romans 8, which I think is a perfect statement of atonement theology which is entirely consistent the "future justification by works" stuff in Romans 2 (note the stuff about "living by the Spirit")

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

I suspect that you will argue that "living according to the Spirit" is something we do as a result of a one-time fully sufficient justification. Well ,the text looks like it indeed supports that reading. But it also supports a "and that living according to the Spirit will be what justifies us" reading. However, the latter reading does not require us to have to morph Romans 2 such that the "judgement" categotry contains some people and the "justified" category contains zero people.

Your view of atonement does not actually atone but simply enables the believer to merit justification by their works as opposed to an actual atonement and propitiation which satisfies the debt of sin.. death.

Christ's blood is an actual propitiation and atoning sacrifice which actually forgives sin, apart from any works we do.

Leviticus 4:20 - And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

That's atonement. The blood is shed and the sin is forgiven.

The simple Gospel. A stumbling block to our pride and flesh but the power of God to save.

[drew]

Your atonement theory is the "moral example" or "moral enabler". There is no need for a propitiation or an atonement to pay for sins. Sins are forgiven by the person's performance and not because of a sacrifice on their part.

Untrue. I know it is difficult for people, perhaps steeped in a certain way of seeing things, to make sense of the position that I am advocating for. I know that it would be conceptually "simple" to beleive that we are "once for all justified" by simple mental assent to the proposition that Jesus died for my sins and that the content of the rest of my life does not matter.

But I am not the one who wrote Romans 2 (not to mention other teachings including those of Jesus). I think arguments that no one will meet the "works-standard" of Romans 2 fail for reasons that I have already described.

There is a slight sense in which your characterization of my argument is correct. And that is your reference to Christ's death being a "moral enabler". When God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus and gave us the Spirit, He then uses the Spirit to fully and sufficiently cause us to live the kind of life that will ensure that we will indeed "persist in doing good, seek glory, honor and immortality" and that, as a result, he will give us eternal life. But your use of the term "enabler" is misleading with its connotation of "making it merely possible for me to then take the ball and score a touchdown on my efforts".

This is not justification by works that can be credited to my effort. It is justification by works in the sense that it is the Spirit - caused works of mine that will justify me at the end. And it is indeed justification by faith "in the present" because it is faith that the atoning death of Jesus alone and belief that He is lord that guarantees that I will indeed receive a favourable verdict on that last day. I know that this "present - future" duality seems complicated, but it does not force us to do something extremely implausible with Romans 2 (and other texts which talk about 'justification by works').

But make no mistake - there is no sense at all in which the death of Christ is not fully necessary and sufficient for my justification. I have never said or implied this and the careful reader will know this.

The importance of seeing the incredible coherence of God's redemptive work cannot be over-estimated. With the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have Israel's eschatological future brought forward into Paul's time - Paul realizes that what God has promised for all Isreal at the end of history, He has done for Jesus in the middle of history.

That same "bringing of the future into the present" template is mirrored in the justification scheme that I believe the Scriptures present. Just as our faith in Jesus in the present means we will be raised in the future, so it is that our faith in Jesus in the present means that we will be justified in the future. In fact, as Ezekial 37 shows, being raised from the dead is indeed how justification will be made manifest.

[Toolman]

Untrue. I know it is difficult for people, perhaps steeped in a certain way of seeing things, to make sense of the position that I am advocating for. I know that it would be conceptually "simple" to beleive that we are "once for all justified" by simple mental assent to the proposition that Jesus died for my sins and that the content of the rest of my life does not matter.

This is an incorrect understanding of reformed soteriology.

What you describe above is more akin to some forms of american evangelicalism than it is reformed soteriology.

Reformed soteriology does not teach that it is simply mental assent or any such thing that justifies us. It is Christ's death and resurrection alone which justifies and trusting in that alone which justifies us.

But reformed soteriology does not stop there, of course. The believer is guaranteed sanctification and glorification. The "rest of my life" is correctly addressed within the soteriology to include all of God's salvific work and not just a part.

But I am not the one who wrote Romans 2 (not to mention other teachings including those of Jesus). I think arguments that no one will meet the "works-standard" of Romans 2 fail for reasons that I have already described.

And, as I have shown, your reasoning falls short when one examines the context of the whole of the letter and not just a few verses.

There is a slight sense in which your characterization of my argument is correct. And that is your reference to Christ's death being a "moral enabler". When God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus and gave us the Spirit, He then uses the Spirit to fully and sufficiently cause us to live the kind of life that will ensure that we will indeed "persist in doing good, seek glory, honor and immortality" and that, as a result, he will give us eternal life. But your use of the term "enabler" is misleading with its connotation of "making it merely possible for me to then take the ball and score a touchdown on my efforts".

Make no mistake Drew. I have understood what you are saying.

You are saying that it is the Spirit that does the work thru you. This work is monergistic and irresistable (that is what I have understood you saying). I understand that you are saying that.

But, that is why there is no need for propitiation. For atonement.

You are justified by the works that are performed. Even if they are guaranteed it is THOSE works you perform which cause God to forgive your sin.

It is NOT the blood sacrifice alone, of Christ, which causes God to forgive your sin.

That is how this view denies the propitiating and atoning work of Christ's blood.

One need only go back to the OT to understand the atonement. The priest made the sacrifice and the people were forgiven their sin.

But make no mistake - there is no sense at all in which the death of Christ is not fully necessary and sufficient for my justification. I have never said or implied this and the careful reader will know this.

I have not made a mistake, I don't believe, and have been very careful regarding reading your position.

It clearly denies the need for the atoning and propitiating work of Christ's blood to forgive sin.

Sin is forgiven because of your performance, guaranteed by the Spirit. Still it is not the blood of Christ which forgives.

I have understood your position. I also see this flaw in it and must point it out.

The importance of seeing the incredible coherence of God's redemptive work cannot be over-estimated. With the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have Israel's eschatological future brought forward into Paul's time - Paul realizes that what God has promised for all Isreal at the end of history, He has done for Jesus in the middle of history.

That same "bringing of the future into the present" template is mirrored in the justification scheme that I believe the Scriptures present. Just as our faith in Jesus in the present means we will be raised in the future, so it is that our faith in Jesus in the present means that we will be justified in the future. In fact, as Ezekial 37 shows, being raised from the dead is indeed how justification will be made manifest.

Not a whole lot to disagree with there. It is "how" and "upon what" that we will be justified that I find disagreement.

You say we will be justified before God by the works that the Spirit does through us.

I say we will be justified before God by Christ's death on the cross, apart from any works the Spirit does thru us.

[drew]

Hello Toolman:

I think that I have presented my arguments as clearly as I can and you have done the same. Based on your last post, I do agree that you more or less understand my position. Exception: I do not think I would agree to this statement:

Still it is not the blood of Christ which forgives.

But I do not think I am ready to go into detail as to how I would respond to this this statement. I have found you to be a thoughtful and extremely gentlemanly person with whom to discuss these matters.

I will probably now bow out of this particular "sub-plot" to the thread as a whole.

[Toolman]

Hello Toolman:

I think that I have presented my arguments as clearly as I can and you have done the same. Based on your last post, I do agree that you more or less understand my position. Exception: I do not think I would agree to this statement:



But I do not think I am ready to go into detail as to how I would respond to this this statement. I have found you to be a thoughtful and extremely gentlemanly person with whom to discuss these matters.

I will probably now bow out of this particular "sub-plot" to the thread as a whole.

I've enjoyed the discussion also Drew and agree we are beginning to repeat ourselves.

Thanks for taking the time to present your thoughts and your thought out responses.

See ya in the funny papers