Romans 3 has more than one word related to sin.
The first is apisteo, to disbelief or to be unfaithful. The unfaithfulness of some Jews does not nullify the pistis of God (3:3).
3:5 has the interesting claim that "our adikia confirms the dikaiosyne of God." In other words, God's justice and righteousness is confirmed as He judges our unrighteousness. Paul's train of thought seems to anticipate some of the thinking in Romans 9 and is the playground of Piper types. However, Paul does not connect this image to the logical conclusions of the 5 point Calvinist.
"It isn't true that God who brings wrath is unrighteous, is it? Of course not! How then will God judge the world?" In 3:8 Paul implies that some accuse him of teaching that we should sin boldly that grace may come. This is not his theology.
The fact is that both Jew and Greek are "under sin" (hamartia) or as he will put it subsequently, "all have sinned and are lacking the glory of God" (3:23). The following collection of verses bombard our senses with the sinful tendencies of humanity. Paul seems to take most of these out of context, in the sense that they were originally directed at the wicked in contrast to the righteous, whereas Paul's point is that there are none who deserve the label righteous.
He leads up to 3:20: by works of law no flesh will be justified before Him, for through the law is the knowledge of sin. We are now looking at "initial" justification as opposed to final justification. Chapter 2 and elsewhere in Paul have made it clear that works are a major factor in final justification. But the difference between Paul and other Jews is that Paul factors Christ and the Spirit into the equation. Christ atones for pre-Christian sin and the Spirit empowers a person to be victorious over post-Christian sin.
Although no one can be justified on the basis of keeping the law--for all have failed to keep the law perfectly--God has, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, made justification possible through his blood. In this way God can be just even though he is passing over previously committed hamartemata.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Politics is the domain of organizational structures...and sense organizational structures have "purposes" in mind...don't spiritualize what is just that, politics and social organization...it is not spiritual...it is the desire, choice and heart of man in serving God in Whatever means he see fit...according to his own conscience...We all have self interest and this is not wrong. It does become wrong if it imposes upon others or limits others in their choices...Our Constiturion guruantees that we enter into social contract freely...not coercively....So, our work is to be self-chosen and the focus is to honor our convictions before God... So there is NO HOLY profession...it is all a matter of heart...
I would say that our social contract assumes John Locke's "tacit consent." Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and if you live here, then you implicitly agree to live by the laws of the contract.
Even if we don't "live here" there is "law" as far as protection of 'human rights"...although I have read that there is a "need" to rethink international law..Countries, just as individuals, maintain their boundaries through "law", this protects abuse of power...so that there is mutuality when there is no relationship...Relationship can not be "recitfied" be law...that is why law limits itself in regards to "family" disputes...
Paul is making the point that "in the family of God" (which I have ceased to be a part of), there is none that lives up to the "standards" of law...in the proper sense of attitude...as well as behavior...
I looked up John Locke's "tacit consent"...and he talked about "a state of war" when someone attacks nature...
Am I missing something when it comes to what is expected? I have felt like there were rules that were being upheld that I was unaware of...and that there has been a game being "played" that I had no full knowledge about, which does nothing as far as building trust...the events that have played out have not been expected...but more so the responses of others have also been baffling...I have been acting with a different "framework"...and now am only using my "natural common sense" one, as my "spiritual one" was ignored or unbeneficial, as it always left me feeling frustrated...Looking at everything from a "natural perspective" is more appropriate...as that does not set me up for a disallusioned "ideal"...I guess this is what I have been saying all along; that everyone has to find for themselves what they are committed to and value and the make their choices...Is Reconstructionism applauded in Wesleyan circles? (I am certainly NOT on their page)
Post a Comment