|
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 10:45 AM
John,
I have really been appreciating your posts. You
and Terry are like the elders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board
with your grace doctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the
whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that
there was a transference of righteousness which took place between
Christ and us. I just have a small question about the substitution of our
faith for Christ's righteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's
faithfulness that stands in for us and it is here that the substitution
is made. As you would, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is
weakened by the flesh and is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the
assurance we have that we are saved by Christ's faithfulness to his
Father throughout his earthly life -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment
of all righteousness. Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is
faithfulness and is thus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification
by faith," then, is justification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own.
This distinction is important, I believe, because it leaves room for
other aspects of atonement besides just a substitutionary transference
(see my Atonement post below).
Allow me now to set out the question as I
see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou (faith or
faithfulness of Christ). There are eight occasions in Paul's letters
where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are
all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in
Christ and of the participation by humans in that salvation. If in these
phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is
meant (as distinct from our faith in him), I suggest it at once
becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself
which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ
if the context allows this -- he is, after all, our Savior.
Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness
of Christ" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis
... in these eight verses and just see what it does
for your understanding of Christ's atoning work, and your fuller understanding
of Scripture. The eight basic occurrences are:
Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a
man is not justified from works of law but only through the faithfulness of
Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou), even we believed
(episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from the
faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and not from works of
law."
Gal 2.20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no
longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the
flesh I live by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who
loved me and gave himself up for me.
Gal 3.22 -- "but the
scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from the
faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou) might be given
to those who believe (pisteuousin)."
Rom 3.22 -- "but now
the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God
through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) unto all who
believe (pisteuontas)."
Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same
section) -- "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he
himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from the
faithfulness of Jesus (pistis Iesou)."
Phil 3.9 --
"that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness
which is from law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ
(pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on the ground of that
faith (pistis)."
Eph 3.12 -- "according to the
eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have
boldness and access with confidence through the faithfulness of
him (pistis autou)."
John, I know you are aware of this, but for the
sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation
and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. The phrase pistis
Christou is a genitive construct and can be translated either "faith in
Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The first translation is what would
be called an objective genitive, and the second translation a subjective
genitive. It is the same distinction we have to make when
interpreting the phrase "the righteousness of God." Is this God's
righteousness bestowed upon us, i.e. "righteousness from God"? or is it the
righteousness God demands of us? or might it be something else? We can
only commit to and answer this question, and hence draw a distinction, in
prayerful interpretation.
If you are interested I will be glad to expand
and clarify.
Bill Taylor
Appendix.
From 03/02/04 on TruthTalk. In regards to the
Atonement:
Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come
as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on
Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning
redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to
clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the
OT conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates.
Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all
profoundly interrelated.
1) Kipur — Together with its
cognates kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the
act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which
exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and
propitiation made between the two factions. Here, the subject of the
atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically
carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness
to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own
judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an
equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here
in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT
where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator;
e.g., "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that
He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to
God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb.
2.17).
2) Pedah — Together with
its cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the
mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts
bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment
upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for
another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the
redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs.
When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin,
death, devil, the world--they have in view the pedah aspect of
atoning redemption; e.g., "Since then the children share in flesh and
blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He
might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the
devil;" (Heb 2.14).
3) Go’el — Together with its
cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming
others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is
placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in
need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for
his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of
redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of
its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in
Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and
David and, by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in
recapitulation (i.e., e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see
also Heb 2.14a -- "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He
Himself likewise also partook of the same").
As mentioned before, these three concepts of
redemption not only overlap each other in the teachings of the OT, but they
also modify each other within the unique relations of God with his people.
Thus they are quite different from secular concepts of redemption. It is
significant that all three concepts are applied in the OT paradigm event of
divine redemption—Israel's redemption from Egypt in the Passover and the
Exodus. In Isaiah these three concepts are also applied to God's servant—the
Holy One of Israel—who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and
intercedes for them. However, the Israelites did not identify this servant
with the divine go’el because the
idea of God becoming incarnate within the existence of humanity seemed
impossible for them. This identification was left to be made in the NT in
God's incarnate Son. However, in doing so the NT reinterpreted this OT concept
of redemption in terms of what the Son of God had actually become and had
actually done while in the flesh.
God Bless You,
Bill
Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:16
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant
versus Contract
In a
message dated 3/31/2004 8:24:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our
sins are remembered NO MORE. The problem for the sinner is not
sin, it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His solution.
The problem is already solved.
Blaine's words appear
ahead of mine on the above post from Jon. I am not surprised at
Blaine's works salvantionist position. I know that Perry does a
good job showing the inaccuracies with Mormon claims -- but the single
most devastating teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the
biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience
to a system of commandments. If we are saved by grace, there is no for the
"right church."
Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the
very obvious reality that man is a sinner. Tons of bible on this.
I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in Greek, a present tense statement:
"if we say that we are having no
sin, the truth is not within us." When I sat in
first year Greek and read that, understanding the impact of continuous
linear action ("are having no") I was stunned. My
mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of this
verse. Implications? I mean I as sitting in Greek class,
for crying out loud studying "the Word of God.' Not smoking.
Not drinking. Not lusting. No t ... well
you get it. AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A
VERSE THAT SAID I WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN. Bummer.
Since that first shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in,
at least, two quantitative forms: time/space (historical
sins such as drinking, lying, and the like --- things that last for a
relatively brief period of time; things I can hide; things that often
do not define who I am) and sins of character -- like
envy, jealousy, hatred, bitterness, anger, slothfulness -- all
those things that lay the foundation for historical sin.
One murders because one is filled with hate or some type of
perversion. This is exactly why Paul says that "all have sinned and
are falling short of the glory of God."
Grace people recognize the fact that sin is ever upon us,
inescapable, often intentional, always disastrous and deserving of death.
Works are commanded, they are necessary, but they are never
accomplished by those who are righteous on their merits --
never. So God substitutes our faith for our supposed
righteousness and refuses to consider our sins.
Much too
long.
John
|
