Romans 4 has a few images and references to sin, although the chapter is more concerned with righteousness.
4:7 uses the word anomia, "lawlessness," as well as hamartia, "sin."
"Blessed are those whose violations of law have been forgiven
and those whose sins have been covered.
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not reckon."
Paul is quoting Psalm 32. He is rejoicing in the fact that God forgives sins and that we are not justified on the basis of our performance of the law. It is rather by grace that we are justified. These are of course references to initial justification.
A second comment of interest is in 4:15: "law brings wrath." Presumably Paul is saying that violation of the law brings wrath.
Finally there is the statement in 4:25, which may actually have been a statement that Paul himself drew from elsewhere: "Who was handed over because of our transgressions [paraptoma] and was raised because of our justification."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I do believe, as Hegal, that ideas do impact how we behave, but those beliefs are also affirmed or disaffirmed within the cultural framework...There is a tension between the material and the "ideal" (whatever that "ideal" is...)...So, in the Quadralateral, while people come to faith in many ways (tradition or upbringing, experience, or "reason"), there must be a culture that brings completion of that faith commitment...through understanding via reason and tradition (which is training or experience within community...The tension of the law that defines a culture and its "ideals" "dialogues" with the actural people that make up that culture...that is why culture changes and adapts in historical time...Therefore, science has "changed" our understanding of Church, society and humanity...where those meet in the convictions of the person varies...We must allow freedom of conscience, if there is to be "grace" at all...Law cannot be defined so tightly around the culture that is imposes and restricts the diversity within the culture...otherwise, the STATE, along with nationalism leads to an oppressive regime...and breeds horrendous images of "God" if it is a religious culture...therefore, morality is not the epitome of "truth"...
Paul was using images to convey a message of "hope" to those who were oppressed by a domineering STATE...
Ben Witherington wrote that there should not be a separation of Church and State...How is this to be "done" and how does this "look"...Is is okay to sanction a culture that allows "immorality", such as our country? Should there be laws that define how one should behave? And how do we gauge what the "standard" is? If it is Scripture, then how do we interpret it in a way that is conducive to progressivism without selling out to atheistic faith?
I believe that what one puts faith in will determine how we define our "ideals" or values...If it is "justice" then how does justice "look" when tradition defines "justice" culturally? An example is the Israeli and Palestinian "problem"...I do not believe that the Scriptures should be used to sanction a certain religion or ethnicity...in other words, the "ideals" of justice and mercy are universals that are representative of all ethical systems...Therefore Jesus is one moral model among many...Jesus lived His life in a tension of Justice and Mercy...but he was NOT BOUND to a relgious "form"...He himself had come to his own convictions of faith...and he was willing to commit to those values with his life...
Fundamentalism, evangleicalism has made Jesus an "idol"...in that, the Church Fathers were apologists of the faith...the polemist were those who were taking from the apologist's intepretation and understanding the "message" in a "new" way...during the Reformation Luther understood that is was by faith and NOT the elements themselves that cleansed men's consciences...it was no a literal understanding of the sacraments...The Gospel writers themselves reinterpreted the OT with the "testimony of Jesus"...using OT verses in new ways...That is what theology is all about...apologetics...and that affects the framework in understanding the Scripture's impact for today...
Ben Witherington wrote that Christianity was a historical religion and not a philosophical one...Well, this is true ONLY if one adheres to the Christian faith being the "only" faith that brings one to God...It is true that Christianity has understood itself in light of Jesus' death and resurrection....but what does THAT mean today??? Could it be a "universal" message of giving one's life for/to humanity??? and the cause (whatever the cause one feels called to) of humanity's flourishing? This I think is important in underlining, just as Paul underlined, that it was not about ethnicity, or relgion...but values that a person is committed to ultimately...which is according to each man's conscience!!!
One of the issues that I think you're thoughts touch on is the question of whose property Christianity is. In one sense, a person's religion is that person's property to define as they wish. There is a sense in which I can't define what Christianity means to you. You have to define it for yourself. There is an Episcopal priest in the northwest who believes she can be 100% Christian and 100% Muslim at the same time.
(Here's the link)
But to do so, she has to be redefining one or the other or both, since the claims of both are mutually exclusive.
So who's "property" is the Christian faith? Who decides what is properly Christian or not? If one does not consider Christianity to be objectively true--that is, one does not actually believe there is a God to tell you what is true or not about Him--if one does not believe that Christianity is objectively true, then each individual determines what is and isn't Christian.
But if there actually is a God, then it matters little what we think of Him or what Him to be. He would then be what He is regardless of our thoughts of Him. And if this is the case, then historic Christianity is far more likely to have the correct understanding of Him than any individual.
If God is objectively real, then the answer to the question of why one should believe in God is simply "because He exists--He does not need to provide justification." If God is only subjectively real, of course, then each person will have their own reasons.
How "objective" can we really be? Isn't your book about "whose property (right) to interpret Scripture"? It is really what we are committed to that gives the frame around our interpretation...where we "begin" is all important...Dr. Martin used to say to "begin and end with God"...but determining what identifies God is the "problem" today...Christians today and throughout history have defined "how we understand God" differently...Should we take all of history's "identifiers" and "pool them together" so that there is more to "draw from" as it pertains to identifying God...We do not know God absolutely...as He is transcendent...all we have are the "forms" that represent him...and philosophy to help us come to terms with our "worldview"...Dr. Martin didn't like to synchrenize philosphy with "truth"...(What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?)...
Today it is more than a philosophical "problem" (if one considers it a problem...)and it is more than an historical problem...The historical problem was identified in modernity....the philosophical problem is postmodernity's...The individual's development could be a "key" in bringing the two areas (historical and philosophical) together...in ONE person of faith...and as was said before...it will be a unique creation of "god"...and an individualized understanding of faith...that results in commitment to ? what is to be "seen"...
Didn't Wesley believe in "educating" as discipleship...The problem, again today, is that "jesus" has become a means to an end...commercialized commodity within Christendom! It made me sick when I walked through "Women of Faith" seminar a few years ago and saw all the paraphenelia that was being sold...and the attitudes that go with it...
I know that I am "redefining my faith" and I hope that these blogs are "helping" others in the sense that a "real struggle" to come to terms with what one will NOT give up...and one of those things is "proper boundaries"...and that is a respect for the individual and their "right" to life, liberty and the "pursuit of happiness"...
In thinking of proper boundaries around "countries", I think about the Palestinians and their "right" to a "state"...Globalization has been based on economic "ends", whereas, borders, laws maintain identifying factors, which are human "ends"....Since "man" is made for identity, we allow a context for man to define himself...and that is culture...Christians have not appreciated the diversity of faith/culture because of their "corner on Truth" and their understanding of Christianity AS CULTURE...that has been demeaning and demoralizing to others whose culture is different...That is what makes this country great...diversity...and Christianity should be as diverse as it is "true"...because there are NO OUTSIDERS...
I am continuing to "think" about what is a Christian...
I believe that evangelicalism has become a "religious form" just as Judiasm was in Paul's day and Christianity had become in Luther's day...
It is not about Christianity forming individuals into Christians (i.e. "making disciples in a certain way), BUT individuals commiting to helping those who are religiously bound to find themselves...It is not about religion at all...because it is about the individual as God's creation and the individual's development...
I believe this happens as individuals are intellectually challenged and through their cognitive dissonance learn what their true commitments and values are and then commitment comes...I think you had said something similar at one point in a response you had to me...Thank goodness for those of you in the relgion department that understand that it is not about a "form"....but it is about the functionality of the individual as a person...in personhood...and that is found in the university....
I am very "concerned" over "religious" teaching that has horrendous effects on oneself and others...yet, they are "biblical"...it is like "biblical counselling"...
Post a Comment