tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post3071892828370993743..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Justification is NOT by Faith Alone (Romans 4 + James 2) and is Ongoing (e.g., Abraham's Multiple Justifications)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger230125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28675905509579105872014-09-20T08:07:56.086-04:002014-09-20T08:07:56.086-04:00Adomnan,
I've been reminded of this conversat...Adomnan,<br /><br />I've been reminded of this conversation again a couple times this week. Something I would like to get back into in the future... We'll see.<br /><br />+Nathan Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31382472361270418372012-11-03T22:00:55.318-04:002012-11-03T22:00:55.318-04:00That's great news, Nathan. Congratulations to ...That's great news, Nathan. Congratulations to you and your wife -- and to your other children, who now have a new little brother.<br /><br />What a blessing it must be to come home to all those little ones. <br /><br />It's no wonder you don't have a lot of time to spare, though.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10713338627401776092012-10-19T15:43:01.685-04:002012-10-19T15:43:01.685-04:00Popping in to say "hi" again - hope to c...Popping in to say "hi" again - hope to continue this conversation in the future, but have been very busy with things (got a new little boy in the family, which makes 5!)<br /><br />+NathanNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30174390207533879252012-07-19T10:30:34.492-04:002012-07-19T10:30:34.492-04:00Adomnan,
I just checked back and saw you had post...Adomnan,<br /><br />I just checked back and saw you had posted again, a few weeks ago. I hope to continue the conversation, but that may take a while, as I will be having additional teaching responsibilities in coming weeks. <br /><br />Best regards - and thank you again for the continual exchange,<br /><br />NathanNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18235437889789484774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-17651064491316325122012-06-25T16:58:54.427-04:002012-06-25T16:58:54.427-04:00I should note that, in the last post, “Show me a p...I should note that, in the last post, “Show me a passage where Paul says or implies that Gentiles, Christian or otherwise, are ‘under the Law’" is Nathan quoting me. <br /><br />Moreover, "fusei" could also be transcribed "phusei" or "physei." In Wright's original essay, the Greek alphabet is used.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-73037045110223368822012-06-25T12:47:16.191-04:002012-06-25T12:47:16.191-04:00Nathan,
There is one additional issue from your ...Nathan, <br /><br />There is one additional issue from your earlier list of questions that I would like to address. You wrote: “Show me a passage where Paul says or implies that Gentiles, Christian or otherwise, are ‘under the Law’. Gal. 4:4-8 ... In any case, I think it is also implied all over the place. First, again notice Rom 2, where it says of Gentiles that “the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness”<br /><br />Adomnan: This statement in Romans 2 does not refer to all Gentiles, but only to Christian Gentiles, who, because of their possession of the Holy Spirit, have the Law "written on their hearts." <br /><br />In particular, Paul advances no idea of natural law or an innate law of the conscience in this passage, but only has the specific Jewish Law in mind, that is, the righteous requirements of that Law.<br /><br />The usual translation of Romans 2:14 is along the lines of the NIV:<br /><br />14 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law."<br /><br />In fact, however, a better translation would be as follows: "When Gentiles, who do not have the Law by birth, do the things required by the Law (i.e., the righteous requirements, not the 'works of the Law'), they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the Law."<br /><br />Bishop N.T. Wright, a leading proponent of the New Perspective, explains how this is the better translation in an essay in the volume "Paul and the Mosaic Law" edited by James D. G. Dunn:<br /><br />"The majority of exegetes have taken 'fusei' (my note: by nature or by birth) with what follows,'ta tou nomou poiosin' (my note: they do the things of the Law). These Gentiles 'do by nature the things of the Law.' But the next use of the word (my note: that is, of the word 'fusei'), a mere thirteen verses later, suggests strongly that this is the wrong way to take it. In 2:27 Gentiles are described as 'he ek fuseos akrobustia,' 'that which is by nature uncircumcision.' Here 'nature' refers to what Gentiles are/have, as we say, 'by birth.'"<br /><br />Bishop Wright concludes from this and other considerations that the "nature" referred to in Romans 2:14 is actually "birth" and that Paul is simply saying that some Gentiles (i.e., those not having the Law by birth, unlike Jews) nevertheless do the things of the Law. Who are these Gentiles who have the Law written on their hearts? We know from Paul's statements elsewheree that they are Gentiles who have become Christians. <br /><br />Thus, Romans 2:14 provides no foundation for positing a human nature that is aware of the Law in some sense. The Law is only the Jewish Law for Paul, not any natural law or law of right and wrong.<br /><br />Gentiles are not "under the Law," do not transgress it, and are not judged by it. And Romans 2:14 is fully consistent with these facts.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-49761128905395503292012-06-25T11:54:23.598-04:002012-06-25T11:54:23.598-04:00Nathan, take a look at two statements you have pos...Nathan, take a look at two statements you have posted and explain how they do not contradict each other:<br /><br />1) Nathan: "when Paul wrote, I concede (we’ve been here before I think) one of his purposes was not to refute the idea that human beings justify themselves by their own efforts." <br /><br />2) Nathan: "It is the Lutheran contention that this kind of bondage Paul speaks of goes hand in hand with the attempts to justify one’s self that Paul speaks of in Galatians 3: 'all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse', for the one who is disturbed by sin in their conscience will try to compensate for it by doing good"<br /><br />On the one hand, you "concede" that Paul was NOT refuting the idea that "human beings justify themselves by their own efforts."<br /><br />On the other hand, you claim that Paul "speaks of" "attempts to justify one's self" in Galatians 3.<br /><br />Which is it? Was Paul speaking of attempts to justify oneself by one's own works or wasn't he? Your propensity both to affirm and to deny the same assertion is part of the reason this dialogue is foundering. Take one position or the other, not both at once. <br /><br />I must also note that in remark 2, you once again assume that "works of the Law" refer to "doing good" and "attempts to justify oneself," a definition that you have also denied you hold in the course of our conversation. Of course, as I have shown, "works of the Law" refer only to "rites of the Law," and not to good works in general or human attempts at self-justification.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30429520381764899072012-06-24T16:23:54.828-04:002012-06-24T16:23:54.828-04:00Nathan: It was sin, producing death in me through ...Nathan: It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment ***might become sinful beyond measure***” (13)<br /><br />Adomnan: Romans 7:13 says:<br />"Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful."<br /><br />What we see from this passage is: Paul entertains no conception here of a natural law or innate awareness of sin in the conscience. He understands the law only as the written code of Judaism, explicitly revealed. Thus, he writes that it through the explicitly revealed Jewish religion (the Law) that "sin is recognized as sin." <br /><br />Moreover, it is clear that Paul thinks that an explicitly revealed divine law makes sin worse, because it goes from being something that is unconscious and unrecognized to being a conscious transgression of a commandment of God. <br /><br />None of this implies that the Law is anything other than the Jewish religion, of course. And none of this implies that "works of the Law" are anything other than Jewish rites. <br /><br />So I don't understand what you are trying to achieve in terms of our discussion by this reliance on Romans 7. Nothing in Romans 7 is in any way inconsistent with my reading of Paul or with the New Perspective. In fact, Romans 7 underscores the fact that the Law, for Paul, is nothing other than the Jewish religion with its written code, which has been my contention all along. <br /><br />Nathan: It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment ***might become sinful beyond measure***” (13) Again, when Paul goes on to explain that when “we were in the realm of the flesh”, sin “sprang to life” when “the commandment came”, killing him – i.e. the law actually exacerbated the sin (not just increasing trespass, or awareness of sin) that was within him (Rom 7:4-13, see 5, 8, and 13 in particular) <br /><br />Adomnan: Nathan, the sin IS exacerbated by becoming a "transgression" of a revealed law. That is Paul's point here. So how can you write "the law exacerbated the sin, NOT just increasing trespass or awareness of sin." You are directly contradicting Paul's point!<br /><br />Got to run.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-61090372325379796382012-06-23T17:46:02.444-04:002012-06-23T17:46:02.444-04:00Luther: “God threatens to punish all that transgre...Luther: “God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do according to His commandments”<br /><br />Adomnan: This shows that Luther could be inconsistent.<br /><br />However, he might not have been inconsistent. As you yourself have suggested, Luther's intention here may not be to assert that God will inflict eternal punishment on those who act contrary to His commandments, but that He will punish them in some temporal way, such as visiting them with illness or poverty or other transitory afflictions.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with Paul's teaching. Paul, as I said, did not focus on divine punirshment for sin, whether eternal or temporal, but sought rather to bring people into union with God so that they would cease to be sinners.<br /><br />If Luther was not telling his followers that they could escape God's anger through faith, even while remaining essentially sinners (which he thought they could not avoid being), then what was he telling them and how did his teaching differ from that of the Catholic Church? And if he did not interpret Paul's "works of the Law" to be "efforts to justify oneself through works," then what did he think they were? You appear to want to affirm the standard Reformational understanding of these matters while at the same time "sort of" denying them.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-70346342830813331542012-06-23T17:28:05.329-04:002012-06-23T17:28:05.329-04:00Nathan: These then, are some of the reasons why Lu...Nathan: These then, are some of the reasons why Luther may seem to be fighting against the Law,<br /><br />Adomnan: The Law is the Jewish religion in Paul. It is not what Luther thought it was. Luther thought that even Gentiles and Christians were "under the Law," at least until they were justified by faith alone. This is false. Gentiles and Christians were never under the Law, unless they happened to have converted from Judaism. <br /><br />Nathan: God’s anger,<br /><br />Adomnan: The theme of God's anger or wrath is only evoked by Paul in the context of the Old Testament "Day of Wrath" or Doomsday; that is, in an eschatological context. Paul sees God's eschatological wrath as directed not towards people so much as towards sin, which God will eventually eliminate.<br /><br />If one ceases to be a sinner, then one does not need to fear this end-time "wrath" of God. <br /><br />Nathan: virtue, moral precepts, obedience, <br /><br />Adomnan: Luther believes that people mistakenly think they can justify themselves by their virtue, obedience and following moral precepts. This is not Paul's view. Paul believes that people are justified by obeying moral precepts, as he says, for example, in Romans 2 and frequently elsewhere.<br /><br />Once again, despite our long conversation, you are conflating "works of the Law" with the "righteous requirements of the Law," two categories that Paul clearly distinguishes. You are merely repeating standard Lutheran teaching, without taking the true reading of Paul into account. <br /><br />Nathan: repentance, consequences and punishment for sin, etc., (just like Pelagius viewed Augustine)<br /><br />Adomnan: Wrong again. Pelagius hardly paid attention to Augustine. Some of his followers, like Celestius and Julian of Eclanum, did -- the latter very effectively. In any event, Luther's doctrine was nothing like Augustine's, and Augustine most definitely stated -- and often -- that men merit heaven and were justified by their works, which were merits. <br /><br />Nathan: though even a cursory reading of his writings and sermons will show that he was interested in persons growing as Christians, or “making people good”.<br /><br />Adomnan: Yes, but Luther didn't think this "goodness" amounted to anything with God, because it was always vitiated by sin. That's why he insisted that God only justified, or acquitted, men on the basis of their faith or Christ's imputed righteousness or whatever, and not on the basis of their "goodness," which was "filthy rags." <br /><br />In any case, this is not supposed to be a discussion of Luther's views, but of Paul's. And Paul has nothing in common with Luther. <br /><br />Once again, you are turning a discussion of Pauline exegesis into a discussion of what you feel more comfortable with: Luther's views.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35060917545914298892012-06-22T18:30:39.711-04:002012-06-22T18:30:39.711-04:00Nathan: And yet, as Paul proceeds, he begins to us...Nathan: And yet, as Paul proceeds, he begins to use the present tense when he talks about his desire to do the Law – even as he is not able to carry it out. Why would he do this if he meant this only to describe his pre-Christian life?<br /><br />Adomnan: Once again, Paul is not talking about his own experience. He was speaking of those "apart from the Law," i.e., Gentiles. <br /><br />In any event, Gentiles can to said to "do the Law," as in Romans 2 (where "doers of the Law" are Gentiles who will be justified by doing the Law) when they do the righteous requirements of the Law. They do not do the "works (rites) of the Law," however. So "doing the Law" means carrying out the moral precepts enshrined in the Jewish religion, even while not being Jewish. <br /><br />Paul goes on in Romans 8 (which I quoted above) to say that Christians do in fact "carry out" the moral requirements of the Law, through the power of the Holy Spirit. <br /><br />In Romans 7, Paul is speaking of a Gentile confronted with the moral commands of the Law before baptism. In Romans 8, he shoes how the baptized Gentile can carry out those commands. <br /><br />Nathan: The Law Paul says he was released from earlier he now says he serves with his mind in 7:25 – even as in his flesh he serves the law of sin.<br /><br />Adomnan: To repeat: Paul is not speaking of his own experience here. To me, the interesting thing about Paul's assertion that a Gentile -- once he becomes aware of the Jewish Law and not innately! -- serves it "with his mind" is that this undermines the Calvinistic notion of "total depravity." Paul apparently believes that "the mind" was not depraved by what we call original sin. (But this is a side issue.)Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56243705254582188112012-06-22T18:17:26.559-04:002012-06-22T18:17:26.559-04:00Nathan: Likewise, when he describes his own experi...Nathan: Likewise, when he describes his own experience beginning in Romans 7:7, he talks as if he to had been an unbeliever (which he was!), who when confronted by God’s revelation (coveting), recognized it as holy and righteous and good but, absent the power of God’s Spirit, was not able to live according to it (or even to really want to fight against it?), at least insofar as it demanded not only external but internal conformity (i.e. from a heart of true faith and love).<br /><br />Adomnan: Here's where you go wrong. Paul, as a Jew, was never "apart from the Law." Only Gentiles were apart from the Law. Therefore, although he writes "I," Paul cannot be referring to himself. In fact, as Fr. Fitzmyer points out, "I" could be used in comtemporary usage to refer to a "human being" or "someone," and this is how Paul uses it here. It becomes clear in the course of this passage that the human beings alluded to are Gentiles, such as his converts in Galatia, who are confronted by the moral demands of the Law (probably through the Judaizers).<br /><br />And no, I am not going to look up examples of "I" being used to mean "human being." As I said, I don't have Fr. Fitzmyer's commentary with me now. You can look it up yourself if you're curious. I'm doing quite enough work on this thread as it is.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43237794427219070342012-06-22T18:07:53.994-04:002012-06-22T18:07:53.994-04:00The resolution of this hypothetical Gentile's ...The resolution of this hypothetical Gentile's dilemma is described lucidly in Romans 8, and there is nothing that I need to add to it:<br /><br />8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. <br /><br />5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.<br /> <br />9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.<br /> <br />12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. <br /><br />14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs —heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.<br /><br />Adomnan: Naturally, Paul had in mind his own Gentile converts, such as those in Galatia, who were troubled by Judaizers and confronted with the choice of embracing the Jewish Law. As elsewhere, he shows in Romans 7 and 8 that adherence to the Jewish religion is not necessary for righteousness: "For what the Law (i.e., the Jewish religion) was powerless to do,...God did by sending His Son, etc." <br /><br />I should add that the command not to covet, which Paul uses as an example in Romans 7 is not a "work of the Law," but a "righteous requirement (dikaioma)" of the Law. "Not coveting" cannot be a work because it is a command not to do something, while a work involves doing something. <br /><br />Nathan: What follows I hope will make it clear that your view of Romans 7 here is untenable. I hope Augustine would be proud. : ) <br /><br />Adomnan: You will not be able to overturn the meaning of the passage as outlined above (pace Augustine).Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20900235394616963072012-06-22T18:05:25.336-04:002012-06-22T18:05:25.336-04:00Nathan, quoting me: You say: “He is using the word...Nathan, quoting me: You say: “He is using the word "I" rhetorically. It apparently refers to Gentiles, such as those at Galatia, who are confronted with the demands of the Law, but lack the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill them.”<br /><br />Apparently? Not sure?<br /><br />Adomnan: Well, okay: sure. <br /><br />Nathan: What evidence do you have for this?<br /><br />Adomnan: This is the interpretation of Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., in his commentary on Romans. Fr. Fitzmyer is probably the premier Catholic Pauline scholar. Incidentally, he is not a proponent of the New Perspective, or at least wasn't when he wrote his commentary on Romans. <br /><br />In any event, Fr. Fitzmyer concludes that the "I" of Romans 7 is a way of saying "a human being" or "someone" and refers in the context to a Gentile who is confronted with the moral demands of the Jewish Law, realizing that the precepts are good but lacking the power to carry them out. Paul goes on to say that, through Christian baptism, such a Gentile receives the Holy Spirit and so can full the moral precepts of the Law.<br /><br />Fr. Fitzmyer comes to this conclusion by considering the seven or eight -- I don't have his book at my disposal right now -- other historical interpretation made of the "I" of Romans and, by process of elimination, arriving at his interpretation. He also cites other scholars who agree with him, and points out that "I" was sometimes used to mean "human being" in contemporary Greek writings and in the Dead Sea scrolls.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10109223124235715132012-06-22T16:57:13.299-04:002012-06-22T16:57:13.299-04:00Nathan, speaking of me: "who is quite educate...Nathan, speaking of me: "who is quite educated (like some of the “Jews for Jesus”, who do Jewish rites for cultural reasons but to my knowledge are not Jewish “theologically”, insisting that all other Christians must do the same or cease to be Christian!)" <br /><br />Adomnan: Nathan, please don't compare me to fundamentalist dopes like the "Jews for Jesus." I am no sort of fundamentalist and am not comparable to fundamentalists in any way, regardless of how "educated" you think them to be. If you can't see that, I fear that you misunderstand me completely.<br /><br />To me, an educated fundamentalist is an oxymoron.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-56327447494038878202012-06-22T16:50:46.738-04:002012-06-22T16:50:46.738-04:00I should of course have written "insinuation&...I should of course have written "insinuation" in my last post, not "insinutation."Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-5905724834026459992012-06-22T16:47:38.226-04:002012-06-22T16:47:38.226-04:00Nathan: regarding hearing and obedience, why must ...Nathan: regarding hearing and obedience, why must all obedience be considered to be active, i.e. the result of a conscious decision of our will? <br /><br />Adomnan: Oh, brother. Now, obedience is not "active." Well, if obedience isn't active, then what is?<br /><br />Perhaps you are suggesting that Christians are obedient automatons? But this isn't biblical. In the Bible, people always freely cooperate with God. In fact, far from being automatons, Christians are even freer as a result of their redemption, which is why Paul describes justification as a liberation from slavery to sin. No, the notion of automatic sanctification is not at all Pauline. (Nor is it Lutheran, I think. It's Calvinistic.)<br /><br />But his is a red herring. Obedience is always "doing," which is what you claim that the "hearing of faith" (i.e., the obedience of faith) is not. Remember, it is you who originally made the equation between doing and activity and hearing and passivity, a distinction you are now inconsistently abandoning as you seek to posit a passive doing, also called "obedience." <br /><br />Nathan: (we are all condemned as sinners by the Scriptures – another key theme in Paul).<br /><br />Adomnan: Actually, no. Paul cites the scriptures ("the Law") to prove that those "under the Law" -- that is, Jews -- are sinners. The fact that Gentiles are generally sinners was conceded by both Paul and the Judaizers and did not have to be established by appeal to the authority of the scriptures. <br /><br />Nathan: However, embedded within Paul, by the power of the Spirit, are the truths needed to counter the heresies *explicitly* based on self-righteousness (before this, such ideas of righteousness would have tended to be more implicit)<br /><br />Adomnan: You are admitting here that Paul does not "explicitly" address the issue of self-righteousness, which is to say that he doesn't address it at all. There is certainly no "implicit" discussion of self-justification in Paul. In doing this, you are departing from Luther and the other Reformers who did indeed teach that Paul attacked human efforts at self-justication through their own efforts and merits and that he did so quite explicitly.<br /><br />More generally, however, there is no way to go from Paul's point that Christians did not have to practice Judaism to be righteous to the quite different belief that good works play no role in justifiation and that Paul somehow implicitly refuted self-justification without intending to or without ever addressing the issue in any way. <br /><br />Nathan: that would later counter the Church, most fully in Pelagius and later, in medieval scholastic theology.<br /><br />Adomnan: The Pharisees and Judaizers were not Pelagians, nor did they have anything in common with them. Moreover, medieval scholastic theology was Augustinian to a fault, and St. Augustine was the great opponent of Pelagianism. Thus, the Lutheran insinutation that medieval scholastic theology was Pelagian is balderdash. The fact is that Luther rejected Augustine once he decided that Augustine was Pelagian! ("Once I understood Paul, it was all over with Augustine.") <br /><br />However, all this Pelagian stuff is beside the point, and it would profitless to discuss it further. For all that, the Law, in Paul, is still the Jewish religion and works of the Law are still Jewish rites and nothing more.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-1049820658692630812012-06-22T16:08:20.030-04:002012-06-22T16:08:20.030-04:00Nathan: So, for example then, the Gospel writers w...Nathan: So, for example then, the Gospel writers were not trying to explicate the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, but the Spirit certainly was concerned that there would be sufficient information within those Gospels in order to counter the heresies that came about in the 4th – 6th centuries.<br /><br />Adomnan: The New Testament writers described Jesus Christ as they experienced Him. Given that He was a divine person with two natures (divine and human), they experienced Him as such, and their description of Him was consistent with their experience of Him.<br /><br />Nathan: In like fashion, when Paul wrote, I concede (we’ve been here before I think) one of his purposes was not to refute the idea that human beings justify themselves by their own efforts.<br /><br />Adomnan: If you concede this (as you do), then you have just refuted the entire polemic of the Reformers, including Luther, who DID believe that Paul was refuting the idea that human beings justify themselves by their own efforts.<br /><br />Given that you've conceded the main point, then it is not clear where our fundamental disagreement is. (However, I realize that you go on to contradict yourself and to find a way of asserting after all that Paul was indeed refuting self-justification. You do this with your un-Pauline distinction between passive and active faith and justification and your rejection of "doing" for passive receiving.) <br /><br />Nathan: Paul – and the Gospel writers – in general are saying that the problems of the Pharisees (and later the Judaizers) is not that are trying to justify themselves by their own efforts (even as we don’t forget Luke 18), but simply that their righteousness is not the true kind of righteousness,<br /><br />Adomnan: I would concur -- to some extent. Paul is in fact claiming that the death and resurrection of Christ bring a new sort of righteousness that is much superior to the righteousness of the Law. However, I do not agree that he regarded the Law's righteousness as false compared to a "true" righteousness. Rather, he regarded it as limited, ancillary, provisional and finally entirely superseded by the righteousness based on faith. <br /><br />Nathan: which recognizes and clings to Christ and lives from Christ<br /><br />Adomnan: Rather than "clinging to Christ," which is a characteristically Lutheran and unbiblical way of putting it, I would say "identifying with Christ" through dying and rising with Him in baptism and feeding on Him in communion. Christ is someone Christians participate in -- "Not I live, but Christ lives in me," Paul said -- not merely cling to as something outside themselves.<br /><br />Nathan: (inextricably connected to this is the idea that Christianity is the normal fulfillment of the Old Testament faith, which is not according to the covenant of Sinai but is according to the covenant of Abraham, and hence, Christians do not need to adhere to a Jewish Law, or Jewish religion,<br /><br />Adomnan: I agree.<br /><br />Nathan: which is anything but the true one – i.e. one that does not see Christ as the fulfillment of the Law). <br /><br />Adomnan: But the Judaizers did see Christ as the fulfillment of the Law, but not in a way that set aside the Law (for Gentiles), as Paul did. They thought the Sinai covenant remained valid for everyone despite the advent of Christ. Paul did not deny that it might still be valid for Jews in some way, but he relativized it and regarded it as unessential. <br /><br />Don't forget that, in Romans, Paul admitted that Jewish Christians in Rome continued to practice the Jewish religion, and he had no problem with that. In Acts, he even makes sacrifices in the Temple, as a Jew, after the definitive sacrifice of Christ, which, the Epistles to the Hebrews tells us, makes such sacrifices superfluous.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6842134099369172332012-06-22T15:08:28.535-04:002012-06-22T15:08:28.535-04:00Nathan: Countering error can be a complicated busi...Nathan: Countering error can be a complicated business! So I don’t think we can say that (the wordiness of my posts) proves things one way or the other....<br /><br />I agree that the true reading of the Apostle Paul is single and simple...<br /><br />Adomnan: This is contradictory. If you agree that Paul is simple, then why do you also say that countering error can be a complicated business? You need only explain simply the simple truth and error dissipates like a morning mist before the rising sun. <br /><br />You often assert, it seems to me, two contradictory positions simultaneously. (I will illustrate this tendency of yours more clearly in my following remarks.) Let your yea be yea and your nay nay.<br /><br />Nathan: So, Paul may have had his reasons for what he wrote, but his exact reasons did not always need to be exactly the Spirit’s reasons.<br /><br />Adomnan: I disagree. Paul was inspired because he was an apostle, filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, everything he taught was infallible and inspired. His writings and his every utterance were inspired because he was inspired. <br /><br />Your statement amounts to asserting that Paul did not understand his own inspired writings, their content and their motivation. This might hold true in the case of a prophet in a trance-like state who is merely speaking words that he "hears." However, Paul's letters are not examples of "automatic writing" and were entirely expressions of his own views and his own mode of expression, inspired only because he, as a person, was inspired. Paul was an author, not a transcriber. <br /><br />Your approach opens the door to reading into Paul meanings that he never intended. This would obviously make any reading of his letters possible, no matter how remote from his intentions. Paul's text would thus become a blank screen, or a message written in a code without a key, on which anything could be projected. <br /><br />Nathan: Would you agree that this is the way that everyone in the Church, prior to the last 150 years or so, saw it happening (i.e. this is the only understanding that accompanies the true rule of faith)?<br /><br />Adomnan: No. <br /><br />The Church Fathers recognized four levels of meaning in scripture, of which the literal meaning was the first. However, not every sacred writing has all four meanings. It is not appropriate to apply the same method of interpretation to a highly symbolic text like Ezechiel and to a straightforward discussion of specific issues such as we find in Paul's letters.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33217871237896241762012-06-21T17:41:04.091-04:002012-06-21T17:41:04.091-04:00Nathan: Adomnan, just checked in and saw you had p...Nathan: Adomnan, just checked in and saw you had posted again. It seems your patience with me (and respect towards me?) has ended. <br /><br />Adomnan: I have been very busy the past several weeks and have only replied to your posts in the odd free hour I had at my disposal. My replies tended to be caustic (at least at first), because it seemed to me that you were no longer raising interesting questions or really engaging with the material but were merely falling back on a defense and reiteration of standard Lutheran positions, which I consider to be beside the point. <br /><br />As I said, if you don't fundamentally understand Paul's perspective (which is not that hard to grasp), then it is possible to miscontrue his writings in an infinite variety of ways. It's not clear that it is worthwhile to refute all of these misinterpretations. Once the correct interpretation is understood, the misreadings should evaporate.<br /><br />It's not so much that my patience with you is wearing out as it is that I am questioning the value of a conversation that is not making progress toward the truth.<br /><br />Furthermore, I got annoyed when you affected, in my view, too pious a tone, suggesting that the Holy Spirit was on your side. The point of this conversation is not to establish who can sound the most pious, but rather to ascertain who has the best arguments for his position. That is why I avoid claims that God sides with me and why I was caustic in my replies. <br /><br />Nathan: Do you want to continue the conversation?<br /><br />Adomnan: In fact, I hadn't finished commenting on your earlier postings. As I said, I've only been posting sporadically, as time and inclination permit. <br /><br />Nathan: As I re-read that was terse and could be interpreted as rude. Did not mean it that way - I really want to know if you want to continue discussing.<br /><br />Adomnan: No problem. I was caustic, and so your apparent "rudeness," which wasn't rude at all, was justified. <br /><br />I may want to continue discussing these issues, but I don't have a lot of time to devote to them. Therefore, I can't promise exhaustive replies. <br /><br />Nathan: I'd like to post again, but unless someone wants to hear what I have to say, it might be better to stop...<br /><br />Adomnan: I haven't finished commenting on your previous posts. <br /><br />Nathan: Thank you for writing all that you did again. I still have not read it, but I look forward to learning from our discussion. I am sure God has much to teach me.<br /><br />Adomnan: Sure. But it's not really necessary to discuss every detail. We need only establish the broad outlines, and the details fall into place.Adomnanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15746373228302022418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50606814291645703482012-06-18T09:26:59.839-04:002012-06-18T09:26:59.839-04:00These then, are some of the reasons why Luther may...These then, are some of the reasons why Luther may seem to be fighting against the Law, God’s anger, virtue, moral precepts, obedience, repentance, consequences and punishment for sin, etc., (just like Pelagius viewed Augustine) even though even a cursory reading of his writings and sermons will show that he was interested in persons growing as Christians, or “making people good”. Even very early on in the Reformation, Luther made it clear that the true Christian avoided the idea of escaping punishment – particularly by indulgences – but rather embraced with joy all of the punishment and discipline that God had for them: of course, he also said that the true Christian could have confidence that they were in a state of grace, which of course, is what gave them the strength to embrace all of the punishment/discipline that God had for them. Also, have you seen what he writes at the end of his section on the 10 commandments?: “God threatens to punish all that transgress these commandments. Therefore we should dread His wrath and not act contrary to these commandments. But He promises grace and every blessing to all that keep these commandments. Therefore we should also love and trust in Him, and gladly do [zealously and diligently order our whole life] according to His commandments” (when I talk about justification before men in the presence of God it is so that we can justify ourselves before others who would accuse us of being false by our deeds, even as God justifies us by faith).<br /><br />Luther would likely go to Romans 5 and 7, among other places, to explain his method: “Now ***the law came in to increase the trespass***, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” and “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment ***might become sinful beyond measure***” (13) Again, when Paul goes on to explain that when “we were in the realm of the flesh”, sin “sprang to life” when “the commandment came”, killing him – i.e. the law actually exacerbated the sin (not just increasing trespass, or awareness of sin) that was within him (Rom 7:4-13, see 5, 8, and 13 in particular) It is the Lutheran contention that this kind of bondage Paul speaks of goes hand in hand with the attempts to justify one’s self that Paul speaks of in Galatians 3: “all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse”, for the one who is disturbed by sin in their conscience will try to compensate for it by doing good, ***even if they do not feel compelled to actually fight against internal desires like covetousness*** (obviously, they do not want to appear greedy towards their neighbors on the outside). This is all very serious, because Paul seems to connect observance of the Law with salvation, particularly in Gal. 3:10-14 and Romans 10: quoting “do this and you will live”, which in its original Old Testament context meant the precepts of the Law as well as the “rites and taboos”. <br /><br />So it is not right that you have Luther and myself pegged as being enemies of God’s law: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/on-childrens-delight-in-rules/ ; http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/dangerous-children-to-the-world-or-to-the-word/ Even if you are right in what you say about Paul’s view, I encourage you to try and better understand us, even as I struggle to understand your views.<br /><br />Thank you again for the most enlightening exchange Adomnan – let me know if you would like to proceed in this discussion. <br /><br />Regards and love in Christ,<br /><br />Nathan RinneNathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-24493519033544636202012-06-18T09:26:54.245-04:002012-06-18T09:26:54.245-04:00I have quickly read through your last response now...I have quickly read through your last response now, and am very thankful for it. I do think I understand where you are coming from even better now, and given your assumptions about the meaning of the language Paul uses, your system would seem to be rather tight. I do continue to see some problems and have questions though (some of my questions were not answered –not that I expect you to answer all my questions, but they do remain my questions). <br /><br />I won’t inundate you again at this time though. Let me stick to one issue. One of the problems that I see is with Romans 7….<br /><br />You say: “He is using the word "I" rhetorically. It apparently refers to Gentiles, such as those at Galatia, who are confronted with the demands of the Law, but lack the power of the Holy Spirit to fulfill them.”<br /><br />Apparently? Not sure? What evidence do you have for this? What follows I hope will make it clear that your view of Romans 7 here is untenable. I hope Augustine would be proud. : ) <br /><br />In the beginning of Romans 7, Paul is speaking to “those who know the law” (could be either Jews or Gentiles) and yet who also “were living in the flesh” – insofar as his address would have been directed towards Jews, it does not sound like he was talking about believing Jews (like Anna, Simeon, Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, Elizabeth, etc. – as you say regarding Romans 7: “Of course, this grace was available to people under the Law, too, and to everyone. It is not a matter of a written code, but of faith and divine power”), but rather unbelieving Jews (this would be most of those who, like Paul, did not embrace Jesus, but rather found themselves at odds with, and opposing him, when confronted by Him and His message). Paul tells us that the Law, the written code (the 10 commandments), held us captive in that it aroused our sinful passions, but now, we have died to the Law and been released to “serve in the new way of the Spirit” (Romans 7:1-6). This filling with the Holy Spirit comes with the power of the Gospel so that, certain of our identity in Christ (beginnings of Romans 6), we might not sin (the Law can command but not empower, whereas the Gospel is this power – see Romans 8:8-16). Likewise, when he describes his own experience beginning in Romans 7:7, he talks as if he to had been an unbeliever (which he was!), who when confronted by God’s revelation (coveting), recognized it as holy and righteous and good but, absent the power of God’s Spirit, was not able to live according to it (or even to really want to fight against it?), at least insofar as it demanded not only external but internal conformity (i.e. from a heart of true faith and love). When Paul talks about being “alive apart from the law”, here (Romans 7:9), Romans 6:20 goes hand in hand with it: “For when you were slaves of sin, you were ***free*** in regard to righteousness” (so when you say you think Paul may have meant that he “mistakenly thought I was alive apart from the Law” in Romans 7:9, this is correct – people also falsely think they are free…). And yet, as Paul proceeds, he begins to use the present tense when he talks about his desire to do the Law – even as he is not able to carry it out. Why would he do this if he meant this only to describe his pre-Christian life? At the end of Romans 7, the answer for his failure is not that he has been quenching the Spirit, but that Jesus Christ will deliver this wretched man from this body of death. The fight against sin will not end until our old man is finally eliminated utterly in our own death. <br /><br />The Law Paul says he was released from earlier he now says he serves with his mind in 7:25 – even as in his flesh he serves the law of sin. Here we think of what he writes at the end of Galatians and Romans 8 about how the believer fights against his flesh, or sinful nature. Like Ovid, the believer recognizes what is right and good, even at the level of internal motivations – but unlike him, they fight against the tendency to ignore this. This all seems pretty clear to me in this chapter. <br /><br />...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16594908501624737742012-06-18T09:26:34.251-04:002012-06-18T09:26:34.251-04:00Also, I must say that many of your claims (attacks...Also, I must say that many of your claims (attacks) in your last response to me I find very disappointing (most at the beginning). I’m sure if you were talking with either Augustine, or Aquinas, who share my views of “works of the law” (as does the Qumran community, as Das points out – the only non-NT occurrence of the phrase), you would be more generous! You state that I see myself as the good guy and you as the bad guy. In general, it is actually most certainly true that my general tack has been to see you as a fellow Christian brother (under great spiritual attack to be sure!) who is quite educated (like some of the “Jews for Jesus”, who do Jewish rites for cultural reasons but to my knowledge are not Jewish “theologically”, insisting that all other Christians must do the same or cease to be Christian!) and from whom I could learn much about where we agree and disagree and why (after all, you believe in Christ alone and grace alone and I assume that you do not think there is any legitimate way to say “I thank God I’m not like other men”, and that you also recognize that in spite of your works, there is also a sense in which you do not give God the honor He is due – i.e. you are only an “unworthy servant”). I mean – given some of the points that you make it is abundantly clear to me that you don’t understand either myself or Luther (for example, when you say, “But this is in fact Luther's interpretation of Paul: The gospel is good news because it tells us that God will not punish us for our sin in contrast to Judaism, which is bad because God puts ‘under a curse’ anyone who sins”), and I’m guessing you would say the same (in spite of my earnest attempts, I assure you, to do so)! <br /><br />...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-63117179081078685452012-06-18T09:26:13.403-04:002012-06-18T09:26:13.403-04:00One of the simple points that Paul, in particular,...One of the simple points that Paul, in particular, wants to make about this clinging to Christ and living by Christ is that salvation is a *gift* (that is delivered to us via an external Word that transforms us – see I Thes. 2:13 ; regarding hearing and obedience, why must all obedience be considered to be active, i.e. the result of a conscious decision of our will? ; also – it was the Judaizers, not Paul, who saw circumcision as something that was active and not passive…), contrasted directly with the *wages* of sin, which are death (we are all condemned as sinners by the Scriptures – another key theme in Paul). Speaking in broad fashion, we inherit eternal life by grace through faith (and there is no need to add anything else to this formulation….) while we merit eternal death (this is not to say that Paul was unaware of the general problem of human self-righteousness [again, see Luke 18] but that this is not foremost in His mind). However, embedded within Paul, by the power of the Spirit, are the truths needed to counter the heresies *explicitly* based on self-righteousness (before this, such ideas of righteousness would have tended to be more implicit) that would later counter the Church, most fully in Pelagius and later, in medieval scholastic theology. Here the Spirit does not contradict Paul at all, but rather draws forth from the logical implications from his writings and the Scriptures as a whole (especially original sin, the Greek word “erga” used throughout the Gospels do describe general deeds or actions, the undeniable reality of infant faith, etc.) specifically for the purpose of countering error. So, while you would see Augustine and Thomas’s handling of the concepts “works of the law” as being faulty (thereby putting you against the mainstream interpretation of your Church, by the way), for example, I would see their handling of these terms here as being right and proper – the truth heretofore only known tacitly being made explicit by necessity. Further all of this happens through the use of the other Scriptures (Scripture interprets Scripture). <br /><br />...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-50539130794898055282012-06-18T09:25:55.920-04:002012-06-18T09:25:55.920-04:00Adomnan,
Again, through our discussion, I think I...Adomnan,<br /><br />Again, through our discussion, I think I continue to see how my position needs to be clarified… You say that my writing much implies that I do not teach the simple truth, but let us recall that the writings of the Church Fathers who countered heresies were of some length as well! Countering error can be a complicated business! So I don’t think we can say that this proves things one way or the other. Further, there are many aspects of the faith that we only know tacitly before they are forced to become explicit. <br /><br />I agree that the true reading of the Apostle Paul is single and simple, but I must also understand this primarily to mean that true reading of the Scriptures as a whole, written by God, is single and simple. Paul can’t be made too autonomous. So, Paul may have had his reasons for what he wrote, but his exact reasons did not always need to be exactly the Spirit’s reasons. Would you agree that this is the way that everyone in the Church, prior to the last 150 years or so, saw it happening (i.e. this is the only understanding that accompanies the true rule of faith)? So, for example then, the Gospel writers were not trying to explicate the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, but the Spirit certainly was concerned that there would be sufficient information within those Gospels in order to counter the heresies that came about in the 4th – 6th centuries. In like fashion, when Paul wrote, I concede (we’ve been here before I think) one of his purposes was not to refute the idea that human beings justify themselves by their own efforts. Paul – and the Gospel writers – in general are saying that the problems of the Pharisees (and later the Judaizers) is not that are trying to justify themselves by their own efforts (even as we don’t forget Luke 18), but simply that their righteousness is not the true kind of righteousness, which recognizes and clings to Christ and lives from Christ (inextricably connected to this is the idea that Christianity is the normal fulfillment of the Old Testament faith, which is not according to the covenant of Sinai but is according to the covenant of Abraham, and hence, Christians do not need to adhere to a Jewish Law, or Jewish religion, which is anything but the true one – i.e. one that does not see Christ as the fulfillment of the Law). <br /><br />...Nathan Rinnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13994922104672096902noreply@blogger.com