- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
JUSTIFICATION: δικαιωμα/δικαιωσις
- Thread starter Arsenios
- Start date
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,424
- 45,388
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi Arsenios, all of the Lord's judgments come to mind first, of course. We are also said to be "justified by faith" .. e.g. Romans 3:28, 5:1; Galatians 3:24, "justification" being forensic terminology (even when God uses it/it is used to describe an action He takes
).Justified here means "declared" just by God, because when He says that about us He knows better than anyone else possibly could how completely not true that is of us, inherently that is. We are declared "just" and "righteous" on the basis of faith, which simply means on the basis the works and righteousness and innocence of Another.
In a similar way He "declares" His Son to be sin for us. Surely you do not believe that Jesus actually becomes a sinner, do you?
2 Corinthians 5
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Maybe I'm not understanding the question (because the Bible seems replete with examples of our sins being forgiven, but here are a few verses that come quickly to mind, OT and New .. Psalm 103:12; Isaiah 6:7; Mark 2:5; Luke 7:48; Romans 4:5-8; 1 John 1:9, 2:12.............
See again 2 Corinthians 5:21 above.
Romans 4:3, etc.+ anywhere the Bible describes us as being "justified by faith" .. e.g. Romans 5:1 and/or presently possessing "eternal life" .. e.g. John 5:24.
Romans 5
8 God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
8 God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
The wicked/UNREPENTANT? No where.
He does graciously declare the wicked/REPENTANT to be "righteous in His sight" by faith, on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone .. cf Romans 4:5-6.
I'm sorry that I didn't have the time to answer your questions as I would have preferred to
(so I may return later to make a few additions and/or changes)Also, if you don't mind, I have a question. What does it mean to you (personally/as an EO) when the Bible declares that we are "justified by faith"?
Thanks!
--David
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Hi Arsenios, all of the Lord's judgments come to mind first, of course. We are also said to be "justified by faith" .. e.g. Romans 3:28, 5:1; Galatians 3:24, "justification" being forensic terminology (even when God uses it/it is used to describe an action He takes
Here is the problem. You see, by taking justification to mean a false verdict given to an unrepentant sinner that is somehow made undeservedly true because it is a judgement made by God's thoughts... I mean, that alone is not true in any way... But if taken as it has been laid forth, then it has nothing to do with our reality, for there is nothing we CAN do to alter it, and God takes us as we are in our sins, and looks past them to see only Christ, and not us as we actually are...
And the forensic meaning of dikaiosune is, youu see, merely a derived meaning - The actual meaning is the ontological one of actually having been made right [with God]... The legal implication is acquittal, but God is not a legalist - He is concerned with the actual and ontological state and condition of our souls... You simply cannot find any place in Scripture or in the 2000 year history of the Christian Church where God is reported to have said to anyone: "I declare you justified regardless of your unrepentance for your sins..."
Forgiveness comes with repentance unto Baptism...
Exactly the problem...
I understand that some historical Lutherans thought He did so on the Cross... But no, He did not become a sinner, but He took on all our sins unto Himself without sinning at all and nailed His Flesh to the Blessed Wood that they be Crucified in Him in His Suffering for us...
We who follow Him can do this too... We can take upon ourselves the sins of a beloved and live repentance for those sins... As we take up our own cross for the sake of another...
If you look in the Bible, in the Greek, it almost never says "Justified by faith..." It always says: "Justified by the Faith..." And the logical question then, since it is always preceeded by the article "the" Faith, then WHICH Faith does it mean? And the answer is: "The Faith of Christ." And then one must ask: Which Faith is Christ's Faith? And the answer to that question is "The Faith that Christ discipled to His Apostles whom He sent forth to disciple all the nations." And THAT Faith is only Biblical in a derived way, because it is the Faith from which the New Testament was manuscripted... And it is the Faith of the Eastern Orthodox Ekklesia...
So that for me personally as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, being Justified by the Apostolic Faith of Christ means living a confessional life of repentance in unceasing prayer and labors to my last breath confessing Christ as my God and Savior...
In practice, that means living in an almost constant state of unimaginable Joy... I cannot imagine this life I live as being even a smidge better than it is, and yet every day it gets better and better, and it matters not a whit what events transpire in the world that happen to me... I thank God for having this great sense of Peace and Joy all the time... And I am approaching the end now, I surmise... I could be wrong... Not my call, unless God tells me to make the call... It happens often enough...
In terms of Calvin, how do you read the Parable of the Good Samaritan?
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,424
- 45,388
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi again Arsenios, I see that there are a bunch of other things that we need to wade through, but lets stop right here at the beginning of your reply for a moment, because what you've written is hardly the definition of justification (at least, it's not how I understand it). Why do you call God's verdict of justification a "false verdict" in this case, and why do you believe it involves an "UN-repentant" sinner?
Thanks!
--David
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I gave it in stark terms - eg That God, in His Great Mercy, and based on nothing else, and especially based on nothing whatsoever that we actually do, justifies us sinners...
Because human action is ruled out in your understanding, so that God's verdict, as Calvin so legalistically calls God's Mercy, is not based on anything other than His Mercy... You say that this Mercy is not given based on anything one does or fails to do. So that whether you do the crime, or do not do the crime, the verdict is the same, and is not based on one's actions, but is solely based on God's Justification of giving a not guilty verdict to a guilty person... Hence it is of necessity a false verdict by definition, "for all have sinned..."
Yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Command to repent, because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, here and now, and the fact is that IF one enters into repentance, one will be baptized into Christ Who IS the Kingdom of Heaven... And to those who do not repent, the Kingdom is not given, and in all this, there is personal responsibility for sin, and free will for both the unrepentant sinner and for the constantly repentant Saint alike...
I am trying to be succinct, so please forgive me if I sound rude in this economy of words...
And thank you!
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Matt 4:17
Scripture disagrees:
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say,
"Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
Or is God somehow the ultimate respecter of persons?
Are we to disregard our own actions?
And look only to the Mercy of God?
And to the Perfection of Christ?
Because nothing we do matters?
Only God matters?
Then why did God create us?
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,424
- 45,388
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi again Arsenios, just so I get the terminology straight before we continue, when you speak of God's "mercy", what is the scope of your meaning? Or perhaps I should have asked you, is there a difference in meaning between God's "mercy" and His saving "grace", and if so, how do you understand both terms?
Thanks! I don't want to end up talking around each other (as I've found so oft times happens around here when we give different meanings to the same terminology).
--David
p.s. - I have no problem with succinct answers .. in fact, I prefer them .. so your answer above doesn't even register on my "rude-o-meter"
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 27,424
- 45,388
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'll jump to this for the moment (as it has nothing to do with the terminology question above).
If the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" is truly the "Command to repent", then why does the Lord tell us to "repent" on the one hand, and to "believe in the Gospel" on the other?
Mark 1
14 After John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
14 After John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Also, the "Command to repent" is hardly a new NT commandment .. e.g. Numbers 23:19; Job 42:6; Ezekiel 14:6, 33:11. So how did the OT command to repent suddenly become the "gospel/good news" of Jesus Christ in the NT? (and what makes it the "good news" of the NT if it wasn't already that in the Old??)
Thanks!
--David
p.s. - Jesus was born, lived and died, "under the OT Law", and He ministered to/taught His fellow Israelites who also lived, "under the OT Law" (as the time of "grace" and therefore, the Gospel of Christ .. which is "Jesus Christ and Him crucified" .. had not become a reality yet). Do you think this had any affect on what and how He taught them?
.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Scripture records that we are saved by (the agency of) God's Grace through (by the means of) the Faith (of Jesus Christ). This means that Grace and Mercy are not co-equivalent things... And it means this because God had great Mercy on Pharoah, but His Grace He gave to Moses...
The very word for mercy in Greek means pity... So mercy is the supplying of what is needed, when God takes pity on us. When we pray - "Lord have Mercy!" - we are asking God to see us in our wretchedness and supply us with what is needed... In this prayer we are confessing that not only are we unable to supply our own needs, but that we do not even know what they are, you see... We become like the woman with the unjust judge [of worldly matters] - We live in a constant state of beseeching God for His Mercy alone, trusting that He knows what supplies are meeded and can supply them... So that in the overwhelming number of instances, God's Mercy refers to the provision of earthly supplying of what is needed...
God's Grace, on the other hand, while it is something God gives, is not creation, but is God giving God Himself to us, and in this we are given His Uncreated Power, because in it, we are joined essentially (for us) to Him by being conjoined with His Uncreated Energies by means of which He created creation... We are in this, you see, conjoined with God Himself, and this according to the state or condition of the soul being so conjoined... Which is why repentance is so important, because IF this conjoining with God - The Marriage of the Lamb in this life - IF this conjoining takes place in a soul unprepared by repentance, it will find no home in that unprepared person... Yes, the person will be changed, but now the Goodness of God will be dissipated in a life not consecrated to God, and the change will not avail that person his or her Salvation, because God will become in him or her a means of availing creation for the sake of the fallen person...
And as a general rule, God does not squander Himself in this manner!
One is not conjoined with God in His Essence, which is unknowable, but only in His Uncreated Energies - The "Backward Parts" as He explained to Moses on the Mount... "For no man can see My Face and live..." We are always shielded from that Face... Even as we "Seek the Face of the God of Jacob..."
Your court now...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Well, I fudged a tad... The Good News is the Presence, here and now, of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the further Good News is that there is something you can DO about it, which is SIEZE it by FORCE, and that siezing is repentance, but this ONLY IF you are willing to Follow Christ by denying self and taking up your cross and running the race...
Christ always knew what He had come to do...
Repentance and the cross are one and the same now with Christ and in Christ...
Co-suffering with Christ in obedience to Christ and in Christ is the key...
In this we overcome the world and live Christed (Grace bestowing) lives...
Arsenios
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The answer is in the correction of the above translation, which omits "the Kingdom", which I inserted for you.
So that the Good News is the arrival of the Kingdom in Christ Jesus, and IF you believe in the Gospel, you can enter that very Kingdom right here upon this very earth.
Well, the command to begin and keep on repenting is optional - It is the big IF of Salvation...
Interesting, is it not? Because the Gospel is not foundationally the Crucifixion of Christ, but the Incarnation of Christ - The only reason for the Crucifixion is that "all have sinned and fall short..." The only reason He suffered for us is because we sinned... Had there been no sin at all on earth, He STILL would have incarnated, that those on earth could become one in Him as the New Creation... The Gospel, the Good News, is His arrival on earth to join mankind to Himself Who IS God... Which itself is the Promise of our Inheritance, which itself is Union with God Himself...
So that BECAUSE of sin, we find Paul preaching Christ Crucified as his "Gospel", and this because it is needful that we overcome sin, so we must die to this fallen world, in order that we become conjoined to Christ as members of His Body, the Ekklesia...
Some find this as a separate Gospel from the OT under the "Law Gospel" of John the Baptist and his "MERE" baptism unto repentance... But for the Jews, this was what was needed, because they had the Law, but for the Gentiles, they needed to be discipled by the Ekklesia of the Apostles - That discipleship took 3 years in those times... Now maybe a year, or less...
Yet repentance is the means of gaining the Kingdom, but after Christ's departure, we find that the Ekklesia, and Paul writes of this, took repentance as one's response to the Gospel News that would gain entry into the Body of Christ, which Christ determined through the hands of His Servants in that Body... Such as Ananias Baptizing Saul/Paul despite his reservations to do so... So that a person became repentant unto Baptism into Christ, instead of being baptized unto repentance because of the presence of Christ, whose Day had not yet come, but was soon coming...
We in the Eastern Orthodox Faith are in Holy Week unto the Great Service of Pascha this Sunday Morning at 12:01AM, so I am buried in at least two Services a day and may not get back right away to you... But what I want to know is if this is making any sense at all to you, because if not, I will be looking at a whole and different approach...
I suffer explaining this to Protestants as Paul suffered preaching to the Jews - I only find marginal success, and the real success comes when God moves people to come nigh... Logical persuasion is not all that great a means of evangellization, and Paul and I share the same frustration in not doing all that well in persuading our brothers... Forgive my vanity in comparing Paul's Apostolic efforts with my puny ones on the net, but I have tried many times to persuade with but very limited statistical success, though a wonderful few have turned East to the EOC... God-Smacking works better, I am thinking!
So I am lookinf forward to your replies, even if I prove unresponsive for a few days...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
I do agree that Protestant theology at times seems to see justification as a legal fiction. But even the most extreme don't think justifying faith is possible without repentance. In Calvin, the forensic emphasis coexisted with the understanding that the foundation of it was a "unio mystica" with Christ. We really are changed, because in faith we're united to Christ. So it is people who are in Christ to whom Christ's righteousness is imputed. I have issues even with that, but it does avoid making justification a fiction.
I've just been reading a book about the Atonement by N T Wright. A large part of it is exegesis of Romans. He maintains that Paul saw sin as just a symptom. (I'm not going to give an account of what he said, but just mention one aspect.) The real problem was idolatry and failure to be part of the Kingdom. I believe his exegesis is right. Being right with God doesn't mean sinlessness, but it does mean dealing with the root problem.
While Wright doesn't exactly say this, I think what Paul means by faith in Christ (wording that could just as well be translated as faithfulness to Christ) is really being Christ's follower. It doesn't imply perfection, but it does imply worshipping God as he is, and being an agent of the Kingdom. For that reason it really does set us right (justify us), because it deals with the root of the problem.
Calvin at least, and I think also other Reformers, understood righteousness as moral perfection. Obviously we can never be morally perfect, so we can only get Christ's perfection imputed to us. But that's not what Paul meant by righteousness. He meant being part of God's covenant people. When properly understood, faith justifies because faith/faithfulness to Christ means that we're Jesus' follower, and that means we are no longer following our own gods, but are agents of the Kingdom, however imperfect.
I should note that ideas like this are fairly common among mainline Reformed folk.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
I agree, but it is ruled out if repentance takes one's efforts, and thereby is a work... Because the doctrine insists that there is NOTHING man can possibly do to attain Salvation...
I would hope so, but forensic justification cuts off human repentance as the basis of one's entry into Christ's Body on earth, where this violence is now being suffered by the Kingdom of Heaven, so in this forensic doctrine there can be no 'unio mystica'...
Human repentance is the foundation of man's entry into Christ...
It is the first word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...
So that when one finds a "unio mystica" proclaiming forensic justification, its existence occurs despite the doctrine...
An astonishing confession!
Why then would one decide to follow Calvin?
Arsenios
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Calvin's understanding was that the process of salvation started when God regenerated a person, moving them to repent and come to faith. Faith unites him with Christ. Out of that comes both justification and the Christian life.
Repentance isn't a human work because it comes from the activity of the Holy Spirit within us.
It's not clear that this idea actually separates us. To my knowledge all Christians agree on the priority of God's grace and the actions of the Holy Spirit. No one thinks that we are converted as a purely human work. Only Pelagians would say that.
Calvin's unique position is that for those who are not regenerated, he thinks God intentionally withholds grace, or perhaps intentionally doesn't give enough grace to effectively regenerate them. I'm not sure how many mainline Reformed would currently agree. I don't.
Nope. First, the most extreme version of forensic justification is really from Melancthon, not Calvin. For Calvin, our appropriation of the atonement, and thus our justification, is based on our union with Christ. Justification, which results from this, is forensic because we don't merit it. But it's also not a fiction. Justification means finding us righteous, and for Calvin only Christ can be righteous. But it is still based on repentance, faith, and union with Christ. It's because we are in Christ that Christ's righteousness is available to us. I think the scheme holds together, even though I would modify it somewhat. I would say that because we are in Christ, God finds us righteous, because righteousness means being right with God, not morally perfect. It is primarily a covenantal term.
The Reformed tradition is reformed and always reforming. Luther and Calvin had a number of real insights, but we certainly don't think they were perfect. Personally, I think they failed to reexamine a number of assumptions they inherited from the Catholic tradition. But the most serious limitation was not understanding the 1st Cent Jewish background of the NT.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Thank-you for your exposition... And I wish you well in your explorations into ever more and more real insights... I had not understood the Christian Faith as a progressive uncovering of insights at all... I cling more to St. Jude's words:
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common Salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and to exhort you
that ye should earnestly contend for
The Faith which was once delivered unto the Saints.
ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.
to you earnestly admonishing, to be hyper-agonizing for (earnestly contending) the once handed over to the Saints Faith.
An ever evolving series of greater and greater insights into meanings derived from Biblical scholarship and study and thereby developing theology never even occurred to me... A forming and re-forming and ever-reforming Faith with more and more real insights is simply a dumb-founding idea to me...
Thank-you for explaining it to me...
I simply would never have guessed...
This Faith of Christ was simply not parcelled out by human insights to people reading the Bible...
It was handed over, eyeball to eyeball, to the Holy Ones of God...
Who themselves disciple it to the Nations...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm going to toss in a couple of definitions, even though I arrived late in the discussion. One point worth considering, justification is based on an act:
Grace and peace,
Mark
Act: Signifies "an act of righteousness, a concrete expression of righteousness," as in the RV of Rom 5:18, in reference to the Death of Christ; the AV wrongly renders it "the righteousness of One." The contrast is between the one trespass by Adam and the one act of Christ in His atoning Death. In Rev 15:4; 19:8, the word is used in the plural to signify, as in the RV, "righteous acts," respectively, of God and of the saints. (Vine's Dictionary, see G1345 δικαίωμα dikaiōma)
Now when it's translated, 'Justification, Justifier, Justify', there are three distinct meanings, "an ordinance," Luke 1:6; Rom. 1:32, connected to precepts of the Law and Tabernacle ritual. Also, "a sentence of acquittal," by which God acquits men of their guilt. And finally an act, based on the conditions and a ‘righteous act’, like the act of Christ at the cross compared to Adam’s sin. Thought I would bring that up without trying to muddy the waters of the discussion so far.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,827
- 982
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
This is why the bodily Incarnation of our Lord, Who was everywhere present in the Old Testament times, but not so in a human body, is THE crucial feature of our Salvation in Christ... Because we also are in the flesh... And outside of Christ's Holy Body, the Ekklesia, we do NOT have the power to overcome sin and death merely in our own flesh... And so we are Baptized into Christ, as the Bible clearly affirms, and this because it is only Christ's body that has this power over death and sin, this Resurrected Body, which we outside the Baptism of the Ekklesia simply do not have...
So yes, dikaioma is a righteous deed resulting from doing what is right...
I have always understood righteousness to be dikaiosune... Let me look...
dikaiosunh - (Strong's1343)
- in a broad sense: the state of him who is as he ought to be, righteousness, the condition acceptable to God
- the doctrine concerning the way in which man may attain a state approved of God
- integrity, virtue, purity of life, rightness, correctness of thinking feeling, and acting
- in a narrower sense, justice or the virtue which gives each his due
And this is the sense that Calvin denies while affirming it...
Saying the Father only sees Christ in us who are believing...
Mark, I would encourage you to read the thread...
Imputed vs real is the issue...
Thank-you for chiming in...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Always nice to get a little of the semantics involved.
Not sure where this is going but the 'act' of righteousness was that of Christ. The Ekklesia are literally those 'called out', that's not necessarily the body of Christ. To be a part of the body of Christ is simply to be 'in Christ'.
Ok, perhaps you would consider a little more in depth discussion of the term from Thayers:
In the writings of Paul ἡ δικαιοσύνη has a peculiar meaning, opposed to the views of the Jews and Judaizing Christians. To understand this meaning, the following facts especially must be kept in view: the Jews as a people, and very many who had become converts from among them to Christianity, supposed that they secured the favor of God by works conformed to the requirements of the Mosaic law, as though by way of merit; and that they would thus attain to eternal salvation. But this law demands perfect obedience to all its precepts, and threatens condemnation to those who do not render such obedience (Galatians 3:10, 12). Obedience of this kind no one has rendered (Romans 3:10), neither Jews nor Gentiles (Romans 1:24-2:1) — for with the latter the natural law of right written on their souls takes the place of the Mosaic law (Romans 2:14f). On this account Paul proclaims the love of God, in that by giving up Christ, his Son, to die as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of men he has attested his grace and good-will to mankind, so that they can hope for salvation as if they had not sinned. (Thayer's Greek Lexicon. G1343 δικαιοσύνη dikaiosynē)
I get the strong impression that the righteousness included here is one that comes directly from the sacrifice of Christ.
I've been looking over the thread, an interesting exchange. Calvin can be tricky.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. (Rom. 1:17)
For the righteousness of God, etc. This is an explanation and a confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God, righteousness must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we may, through him being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists only in his favor; for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous, since he regards unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore intimates, that we cannot obtain salvation otherwise than from the gospel, since nowhere else does God reveal to us his righteousness, which alone delivers us from perdition. Now this righteousness, which is the groundwork of our salvation, is revealed in the gospel: hence the gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation. Thus he reasons from the cause to the effect. (John Calvin’s commentary, Romans 1:17)
Now that's justification by grace through faith in no uncertain terms which I know for a fact, no self respecting Orthodox would deny. I'll take another look at the thread but at least this much should be obvious.
Upvote
0
It's worth continuing the quote, because of some of our discussion above:
"Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his tribunal;1 as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it be only vapour. ...
"Of greater moment is what some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration. But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place."
Note that Calvin here has a somewhat better understanding of God's righteousness than what I suggested above. In this case he defines it as "that which is approved before his tribunal," which I believe is a better definition, and his discussion gives a broader context to it. What this definition misses, and Luther at times saw better, is that God's righteousness is his commitment to carry out his covenant promise to save his people. This is suggested by the last part of what I just quoted from Calvin, but not very precisely.
It's also worth noting that his statement "for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous" could be misleading. He has stated elsewhere that after the Fall, God still saw in us a broken version of his image, and loved us, and that he sent Christ to redeem us for that reason. So saying that God can't love us until we become righteous is not the full story.
"Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his tribunal;1 as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it be only vapour. ...
"Of greater moment is what some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration. But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place."
Note that Calvin here has a somewhat better understanding of God's righteousness than what I suggested above. In this case he defines it as "that which is approved before his tribunal," which I believe is a better definition, and his discussion gives a broader context to it. What this definition misses, and Luther at times saw better, is that God's righteousness is his commitment to carry out his covenant promise to save his people. This is suggested by the last part of what I just quoted from Calvin, but not very precisely.
It's also worth noting that his statement "for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous" could be misleading. He has stated elsewhere that after the Fall, God still saw in us a broken version of his image, and loved us, and that he sent Christ to redeem us for that reason. So saying that God can't love us until we become righteous is not the full story.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A couple of comments from Dunn's exegesis of Rom 1:17:
"God is “righteous” when he fulfills the obligations he took upon himself to be Israel’s God, that is, to rescue Israel and punish Israel’s enemies (e.g., Exod 9:27; 1 Sam 12:7; Dan 9:16; Mic 6:5)—“righteousness” as “covenant faithfulness” (3:3–5, 25; 10:3; also 9:6 and 15:8). Particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah the logic of covenant grace is followed through with the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the righteousness of God as God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenant (Ps 31:1; 35:24; 51:14; 65:5; 71:2, 15; 98:2; 143:11; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 62:1–2; 63:1, 7; in the DSS see particularly 1QS 11.2–5, 12–15; 1QH 4.37; 11.17–18, 30–31; elsewhere see, e.g., Bar 5:2, 4, 9; 1 Enoch 71.14; Apoc. Mos. 20.1; 4 Ezra 8:36; ..."
" δικαιοῦν, “to justify”: does it mean “to make righteous” or “to count righteous?” This is the classic dispute between Catholic and Protestant exegesis (see particularly Ziesler whose whole analysis revolves round this question; and the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue in Reumann). Since the basic idea is of a relationship in which God acts even for the defective partner, an action whereby God sustains the weaker partner of his covenant relationship within the relationship, the answer again is really both "
"God is “righteous” when he fulfills the obligations he took upon himself to be Israel’s God, that is, to rescue Israel and punish Israel’s enemies (e.g., Exod 9:27; 1 Sam 12:7; Dan 9:16; Mic 6:5)—“righteousness” as “covenant faithfulness” (3:3–5, 25; 10:3; also 9:6 and 15:8). Particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah the logic of covenant grace is followed through with the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the righteousness of God as God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenant (Ps 31:1; 35:24; 51:14; 65:5; 71:2, 15; 98:2; 143:11; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 62:1–2; 63:1, 7; in the DSS see particularly 1QS 11.2–5, 12–15; 1QH 4.37; 11.17–18, 30–31; elsewhere see, e.g., Bar 5:2, 4, 9; 1 Enoch 71.14; Apoc. Mos. 20.1; 4 Ezra 8:36; ..."
" δικαιοῦν, “to justify”: does it mean “to make righteous” or “to count righteous?” This is the classic dispute between Catholic and Protestant exegesis (see particularly Ziesler whose whole analysis revolves round this question; and the Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue in Reumann). Since the basic idea is of a relationship in which God acts even for the defective partner, an action whereby God sustains the weaker partner of his covenant relationship within the relationship, the answer again is really both "
Upvote
0
Similar threads
