Abolishing the law of commandments

[Xeno.of.athens]

Precisely. . .that righteousness making us approved being imputed

I keep wondering why you insert ideas like "imputed [by faith]" that are not in the meaning of the word. Why not let the word mean what it means and then derive the theology from the rest of the words in a verse?

I also wonder why you hone in on secondary meanings for a word rather than taking the word's whole gamut of meanings? Why not bold and blue these words "39x: pr. to make or render right or just;" or "mid. to act with justice, Rev 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mat 11:19; Luk 7:29; to set forth as good and just, Luk 10:29; Luk 16:15"?

δικαιόω
dikaioō
39x: pr. to make or render right or just; mid. to act with justice, Rev 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mat 11:19; Luk 7:29; to set forth as good and just, Luk 10:29; Luk 16:15; in NT to hold as guiltless, to accept as righteous, to justify, Rom 3:26; Rom 3:30; Rom 4:5; Rom 8:30; Rom 8:33; pass. to be held acquitted, to be cleared, Act 13:39; Rom 3:24; Rom 6:7; to be approved, to stand approved, to stand accepted, Rom 2:13; Rom 3:20; Rom 3:28.

The word isn't a theological proposition, it is a word, the theology comes from its combination with other words in statements.

 

[Clare73]

Oh, it has biblical merit, and the biblical demonstrations have all been made over and over. But some prefer to hear and to read selectively. I have no control over that.

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Clare73]

I keep wondering why you insert ideas like "imputed [by faith]" that are not in the meaning of the word.

That is the testimony of the NT.

justify (dikaioo) - "to declare to be righteous, to pronounce righteous"

God is the justifier (dikaiosis), "the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26),
justification being the legal and formal acquittal from guilt by God as Judge,
the pronouncement of the sinner as righteous by faith (Romans 3:21-25, Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1),
no condemnation (Romans 8:1, Romans 8:33-34),
which righteousness is credited/reckoned/imputed (logizomai) to him (Romans 4:3-5, Romans 4:22-24, 6, 9)
from Christ (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18b, 19b),
by God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-24), the
saint having nothing to do with it (no good works, no law keeping) apart from faith (Romans 3:28), just
as God credited/reckoned/imputed righteousness to Abraham by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Why not let the word mean what it means and then derive the theology from the rest of the words in a verse?

The word means what it means as it is used in the context.
The "rest of the theology" is derived from the Scripture relating to the verse, which is integrated into one doctrine.

I also wonder why you hone in on secondary meanings for a word

One "homes in" on the meaning of the word as revealed from and in the context of the passage.

rather than taking the word's whole gamut of meanings? Why not bold and blue these words "39x: pr. to make or render right or just;" or "mid. to act with justice, Rev 22:11; to avouch to be good and true, to vindicate, Mat 11:19; Luk 7:29; to set forth as good and just, Luk 10:29; Luk 16:15"?
The word isn't a theological proposition, it is a word, the theology comes from its combination with other words in statements.

Apart from the definition of its meaning, the theological proposition also comes from the light of the word's usage in context of the passage, as well as all of the NT. . .presented to some degree above.

 

[fhansen]

Non-responsive. . .

More preferential thinking on your part.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Non-responsive. . .

Pardon me for saying so, but the way you've replied to the definitions posts I wrote is aptly described as "non responsive ..." because merely repeating your previous position each time I reply is not a response.

 

[Clare73]

Pardon me for saying so, but the way you've replied to the definitions posts I wrote is aptly described as "non responsive ..." because merely repeating your previous position each time I reply is not a response.

I am not understanding to what you are referring.
Is there error in what I post?

I have affirmed and used the definitions you provided.
I have used your definitions to harmonize Scripture, because God does not contradict himself in his word written.

If our understanding of God's word has it contradicting itself, our understanding is incorrect.
God's word is in harmony with itself.

 

[Clare73]

More preferential thinking on your part.

Assertion without demonstration. . .

 

[fhansen]

Assertion without demonstration. . .

Nope. I've asserted and demonstrated multiple times in multiple posts covering more than one topic, but most often this one. It's there-I won't re-write it all. If truth is of interest one must be open to it-and seek it for themselves.

 

[Clare73]

Nope. I've asserted and demonstrated multiple times in multiple posts covering more than one topic, but most often this one. It's there-I won't re-write it all. If truth is of interest one must be open to it-and seek it for themselves.

Not in any post to me.

 

[fhansen]

Not in any post to me.

Oh well. Maybe I'm just not memorable.

 

[Minister Monardo]

Ephesians 2:11-22 mentions that Jesus Christ is our [Christians'] peace and that he brings together Jews and Gentile ... by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances ... and might reconcile us both to God in one body ...

What do you make of that?

"law of commandments in ordinances"
nomos entole en dogma
refers to traditions of men undermining
God's law.
Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that
it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep
company, or come unto one of another nation; but God
hath shewed me that I should not call any man common
or unclean.
Law? or tradition of the elders?
Central issue for the new church, and reason for
the four commands of Acts 15, to allow fellowship
between Jew and Gentile without offense.
Galatians 2:
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him
to his face, because he was to be blamed;
12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat
with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and
separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision.
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite
with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with
their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward
about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before all,
If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and
not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of
the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed
in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ
and not by the works of the law; for by the works of
the law no flesh shall be justified.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"law of commandments in ordinances"
nomos entole en dogma
refers to traditions of men undermining
God's law.

I wonder if that is right?

Paul doesn't mention "traditions of men" in the passage.

You Gentiles by birth—called "the uncircumcised" by the Jews, who call themselves the circumcised (which refers to what men do to their bodies)—remember what you were in the past. At that time you were apart from Christ. You were foreigners and did not belong to God's chosen people. You had no part in the covenants, which were based on God's promises to his people, and you lived in this world without hope and without God. But now, in union with Christ Jesus you, who used to be far away, have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For Christ himself has brought us peace by making Jews and Gentiles one people. With his own body he broke down the wall that separated them and kept them enemies. He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace. By his death on the cross Christ destroyed their enmity; by means of the cross he united both races into one body and brought them back to God. So Christ came and preached the Good News of peace to all—to you Gentiles, who were far away from God, and to the Jews, who were near to him. It is through Christ that all of us, Jews and Gentiles, are able to come in the one Spirit into the presence of the Father. So then, you Gentiles are not foreigners or strangers any longer; you are now citizens together with God's people and members of the family of God. You, too, are built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, the cornerstone being Christ Jesus himself. He is the one who holds the whole building together and makes it grow into a sacred temple dedicated to the Lord. In union with him you too are being built together with all the others into a place where God lives through his Spirit.
(Ephesians 2:11-22 GNB)
​

 

[Minister Monardo]

I wonder if that is right?

What do you think dogma means?
One cannot downplay the role of "expert opinion"
in creating division within the body of Christ.
The Lord Himself referred to this as
"traditions of the elders".
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect
through your tradition, which you have delivered:
and many such things you do.
Because Paul does not use that particular expression
in Ephesians 2 does not preclude the fact,
that is what he is referring to: DOGMA.
Paul was committed to establishing the church on
new traditions and doctrines that did NOT render
the word of God to no effect.
Colossians 2:
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through
philosophy and empty deceit,
according to the tradition of men,
according to the basic principles of the world,
and not according to Christ.
After which he goes on to say:
14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements
that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He
has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Again, using the word DOGMA.
2 Thessalonians
2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions
which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother
who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition
which he received from us.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What do you think dogma means?

I think that the Lexicons define it along these lines

δόγμα
dógma; gen. dógmatos, neut. noun from dokéō (G1380), to think. Opinion, conclusion, ordinance, proposition, dogma. With the meaning of conclusion (Act_16:4); as a decree or command (Luk_2:1; Act_17:7); of the Mosaic Law, i.e., external precepts (Eph_2:15; Col_2:14; Sept.: Dan_2:13; Dan_3:10; Dan_6:8, Dan_6:13, Dan_6:15). Used concerning Christianity, it means views, doctrinal statements, principles.
Deriv.: dogmatízō (G1379), to decree.
Syn.: diatagḗ (G1296), ordinance; parádosis (G3862), tradition, that which has been handed down; archḗ (G746), principle; kanṓn (G2583), rule, canon; nómos (G3551), law; alḗtheia (G225), truth; pístis (G4102), faith.​