site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2143 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 8, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll concede the point on the aorist in 4:2. Maybe there's some argument that could be made, but it would at least be too tenuous to concern ourselves with.

If Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 justified him entirely, why didn't his act of faith in Genesis 12:4 do so? For as Hebrew's 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." So Abraham obeyed God by faith, did not get justified as a single one time action, he believed God later on and was justified then and for always? What was the distinction?

This is a very good question. I think I'll say that his faith was counted as righteousness at both times, and was justified throughout, but I understand if that's not convincing.

justification refers to the same thing as what is seen in 4:3: counting as righteous

I understand that the words Justification and Righteousness are the same root words in the Greek, just translated into English in whatever word is most intelligible. But just like I used the same word "remember" in both sentences in the Elephant example, someone might use the same word ironically in two different sentences to contrast the two (always remember in the first sentence, simple remember in the second, like aorist justify in the first verse, not-aorist righteous in the second.)

In the passage quoted, I was just making the assertion, not backing it up. The support followed: that it is required argumentatively at least that being justified in 4:2 and counted righteous in 4:3 be in some way related: faith being counted righteous is sufficient to conclude that Abraham cannot boast before God in being justified by works, among other arguments.

Regarding verses 6-8, of course Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins after repentance. But having sins forgiven does not itself make someone righteous forever afterwards.

For example, Paul is quoting Psalm 32. In Psalm 32, David is repenting of the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11, murder and adultery. But before David sinned, God called David, "a man after his own heart." So we have a just man, who sins, then repents and is forgiven.

Verse 9 connects the forgiveness of sins with Abraham's state of Circumcision. Abraham was able to have one righteous action while uncircumcised. "The faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness."

I still get the sense that you're not integrating this into the passage well.

Let's go through (abbreviating a little):

3: Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness

4: for workers, wages are due, not gift

5: but ones who believe rather than work, faith counted as righteousness,

6: Like David in counting righteousness apart from works

7-8:blessed the one whose sins not counted

9:This blessing also for the uncircumcised, because Abraham's faith counted as righteous

Okay, now let's look at some suppositions in the reasoning. To get from 6-8 to 9, it requires that Abraham's faith being counted as righteous meaning that sins are not counted. The same for connecting 5 to 6-8.

As I said, this fits the broader pattern in the first portion of Romans, of wrath for sin.

Yes, I agree that we shouldn't treat the passage as an unorganized list of propositions. That was my position from the first comment. The purpose of the whole letter is that Abraham is our father in faith and Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to participate in faith and receive Justification from Jesus.

You are trying to read between the lines to come up with a meaning that this passage does not readily appear to have. You are arguing that justification is a one time deal by applying the tense of one sentence to the tense of the subsequent and tying different verses together from different parts of the letter.

I'll concede that the aorist was a stretch, and that I haven't organized things especially well, but I do think it's important to be tying verses together in order to get what Paul is getting at and what arguments he is making.

St. Paul is refuting the Judaizers, who believed that the Law, an impersonal entity, had the power to give life. The Judiazers were wrong. As Galations 3:21 says, "if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Another verse that supports that the Torah was insufficient to provide salvation by itself.)

The Judaizers in Rome believed rather that one need only obey the law externally, which would obligate God to repay them with eternal life, as an employer pays a worker his wage (Romans 4:4). Arguing against this, St. Paul teaches us we must approach God on a personal level, with faith and sincere contrition for our sins. God will, in turn, graciously forgive us (Psalm 32), infuse us with supernatural virtues, and credit them to our account as righteousness.

Faith is the foundation and the root of all justification. Without faith, no works will justify. However, this does not preclude the possibility that God might reckon the believer's faith to him as righteousness again at some other point in his life. Just looking at Abraham we see justification in Genesis 12:4, Genesis 15:6, Genesis 22. There are other virtues, such as Hope and Charity, which God might credit to a believer's account as well, after that first act of justification through Faith has been accomplished.

I think our differences in our readings of this passage might be smaller than I thought: primarily down to imputation vs. infusion.

I think verses 5-8 would argue against infusion.

The verses are roughly saying that faith is counted as righteousness, like the blessing of the one to whom righteousness is counted apart from works, which consists in the forgiveness of sins. The righteousness in verse 6 definitely reads like it has more to do with forgiveness than credit to infused virtues, and so it makes sense to carry it over to the righteousness in verse 5, because they're like one another.

I'd also still argues that justify in this passage (at least, in verse 2) refers to counting as righteous. In 3:20, that definitely seems to be the case (do you have a different reading there?) and it makes sense to use it in the same sense here, as synonymous with the "counted to him as righteousness" in verse 3.

To be clear, though, Paul affirms that the Torah promises life, in Gal. 3:12. His point in 3:21 is not that it does not offers salvation if obeyed; it's that it is not obeyed and does not give the power to obey it.

Do you believe that the intention of Paul in these verses was to argue against a group of people who believed Justification was a continuous process? Or was Paul's intention in these verses to argue against a group of people who believed Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus? I think you would acknowledge the latter, but say that the words Paul is using implies that he believes Justification was a one-time event. If that is the case, I think I'm reading the purpose of the passage as a whole.

Yes, I agree that it is the latter. Paul is using the terminology, not arguing for it, mostly (at least, in the case of "justify").

I think I'll say that his faith was counted as righteousness at both times, and was justified throughout

I think this agrees with the Catholic perspective. Abraham received initial justification through faith, and multiple acts counted as righteousness.

I wouldn't argue that Paul is arguing for this specifically in Psalm 32, but are you aware that Catholics believe that we receive initial justification at Baptism (an act of faith that makes us adoptive siblings of Jesus Christ) and that at this initial justification all prior sins are forgiven?

Paraphrasing verses 2-9:

2 - Abraham wasn't especially just by himself.

3 - Abraham's belief in God is a righteous act.

4 - Wages as a due - ties back to verse 2, Abraham wasn't getting just wages because he wasn't justified by his own abilities.

5 - Ties back to verse 3, Faith in God is righteous. (side note, in Hebrew poetry it is common to have two repetitive stanzas, back and forth, with slight differences to distinguish between. I'm not saying Paul is writing poetry here, but he seems to have a similar rhythm. I highly recommend reading Robert Altar's The Art of Biblical Poetry if you haven't already.)

6 - David said that God can credit righteousness apart from works of the law.

7 - Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away.

8 - Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count.

I think our differences in our readings of this passage might be smaller than I thought

Are you aware that (some) Lutheran leaders and (some) Catholic leaders got together, hashed out our differences and realized we mostly agree on Justification?

I think where the difference is going to stay is the imputation vs infusion. Catholics believe God's word is efficacious, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. (Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?)

From our perspective, imputed righteousness seems like God both deceiving and being deceived. But does Romans 4 really argue for imputation?

In context, versus 5-8 quote the first verses of Psalm 32. Traditionally, quoting the first verse of a Psalm means to draw someone's attention to the whole psalm. Hence, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What is the rest of Psalm 32?

When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy on me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer.

Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.”

And you forgave the guilt of my sin. Therefore let all the faithful pray to you while you may be found; surely the rising of the mighty waters will not reach them. You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance:

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.

Many are the woes of the wicked, but the Lord’s unfailing love surrounds the one who trusts in him Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart!

Or basically - Guilt, repentance, confession, forgiveness. Paul isn't referencing a passive forgiveness of sins after an initial justification of faith, but rather another act of righteousness that lead to forgiveness. This one is interesting because Paul isn't referencing an act of faith, it's an act of repentance.

It is commonly believed that Psalm 32 is in reference to 2 Samuel 12. What Paul was likely emphasizing is that the forgiveness of David's sins took place outside the law. 2 Samuel 12:13, "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.'" There's no Levitical sacrifices, no Yom Kippur. Just an honest confession and sorrow for sin.

This "counting" as righteousness word is going to require a word study. The word for "counting" here is elogisthe and logizetai. So where else is the word used in the New Testament?

For I consider [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Romans 8:18).

Paul later uses the word in this letter (and others) to describe earnest acts of the mind: considering and regarding. It's not reference to a modern financial accounting system. Another couple strong examples:

When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason [elogizomen] like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell [logizesthe] on these things (Phillippians 4:8)

It it is not a word used to show some outside force providing a title that is the opposite of the real object. In each of these cases, the subject is thinking about reality.

Applying that to this passage, God truly is considering, reasoning, regarding Abraham as doing something righteous when Abraham performs his act of faith.

Sorry for that long of a delay. Anyway, here I am.

I wouldn't argue that Paul is arguing for this specifically in Psalm 32, but are you aware that Catholics believe that we receive initial justification at Baptism (an act of faith that makes us adoptive siblings of Jesus Christ) and that at this initial justification all prior sins are forgiven?

Yes, I think you'd mentioned this earlier.

I think there's more to the passage than your account of the verses. Verses 6-8 treat the crediting righteousness as consisting in the not-imputing sin, I think. Also relevant is that the passage is not treating it as a single righteous deed to add to a ledger, but that it itself constitutes righteousness whereby we are accepted before God. I'd also point out that arguably, if our acceptance is based off of something inherent in us, that that would be something that is our due, not a gift, per verse 5.

Are you aware that (some) Lutheran leaders and (some) Catholic leaders got together, hashed out our differences and realized we mostly agree on Justification?

Yes, I am aware that that exists, though I have no idea of the extent of the agreement, or of the orthodoxy of those involved. I haven't examined it.

I think where the difference is going to stay is the imputation vs infusion. Catholics believe God's word is efficacious, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. (Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?)

From our perspective, imputed righteousness seems like God both deceiving and being deceived. But does Romans 4 really argue for imputation?

It is pretty clear from the passage, I think, that the passage is arguing for non-imputation, at least. That's what Romans 4:6-8 is clearly describing. Does this involve "deceiving and being deceived"?

Or basically - Guilt, repentance, confession, forgiveness. Paul isn't referencing a passive forgiveness of sins after an initial justification of faith, but rather another act of righteousness that lead to forgiveness. This one is interesting because Paul isn't referencing an act of faith, it's an act of repentance.

But Paul isn't talking about that. What Paul is referring to is specifically that having one's sins forgiven, covered, not counted against oneself suffices to make one blessed. The focus is not on how that is attained, but upon how the blessing (and, per verse 6 and verse 9, righteousness) consists in the forgiveness of sins.

This "counting" as righteousness word is going to require a word study. The word for "counting" here is elogisthe and logizetai. So where else is the word used in the New Testament?

Yes, the word has that in its semantic range. In 4:8, it is also used to say that the sin is not counted (same word). But that isn't to say that the sin never happened.

Or see Mark 15:28, where the same word is used to say that Jesus "was numbered with the transgressors." Or 2 Cor 5:19, "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them."

So this doesn't seem out there, to me.

But Paul isn't talking about that. What Paul is referring to is specifically that having one's sins forgiven, covered, not counted against oneself suffices to make one blessed. The focus is not on how that is attained, but upon how the blessing (and, per verse 6 and verse 9, righteousness) consists in the forgiveness of sins.

Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. What are you arguing against?

The proposition that there will neither be sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven?

The proposition that at some point, (in this life or in the next) sinful people lose their attachment to sin through the graces of Jesus' death and Resurrection?

That this purification requires some assent of the sinner's will, some kind of cooperation with Jesus?

Can you go to Heaven without loving God and Neighbor?

Can you love God without keeping His commandments and repenting if you fail?

Can you keep God's commandments without doing good works?

Do good works happen automatically, or does the Christian need to accept Jesus's graces? In other words, can a Christian reject Jesus' graces and refuse to do good works?

I'll begin by addressing the specific propositions:

The proposition that there will neither be sin nor attachment to sin in Heaven?

I affirm the proposition.

The proposition that at some point, (in this life or in the next) sinful people lose their attachment to sin through the graces of Jesus' death and Resurrection?

I affirm the proposition.

That this purification requires some assent of the sinner's will, some kind of cooperation with Jesus?

I affirm the proposition. (Though I don't know if I'd qualify that in different ways that you do.)

Can you go to Heaven without loving God and Neighbor?

Yes, and no. No, you cannot go to heaven without loving God and neighbor to some extent. At the same time, we do not go by the fulfilling of Christ's commandment there. But when we are there, we will follow the commandment properly.

Can you love God without keeping His commandments and repenting if you fail?

Loving God will lead naturally to a life of repentance. To quote the first of the 95 theses, "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance"

Can you keep God's commandments without doing good works?

No.

Do good works happen automatically, or does the Christian need to accept Jesus's graces? In other words, can a Christian reject Jesus' graces and refuse to do good works?

I don't see how those are synonymous. In any case, I would say that good works do involve human action and assent, but that that is itself wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

Okay, so I could affirm with almost every proposition you submitted, but I don't agree with the overall argument that you are making.

Yes, I agree that our lives are increasingly conformed, until ultimately we are perfected, in the life to come.

And I think this is necessary, that the lives of Christians cannot be otherwise. But because I do not think that we will meet the standard of God's law in this life, I do not think that our conformity to the commandment can be the basis of our acceptance. And as Paul writes, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”"

We do not enter heaven by loving God and our neighbor, except by the forgiveness of the faults in those very acts of love, and in those works. In a very real sense, we enter despite even our best works, best affections, best desires.

So then back to my original quote. Yes, of course catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins. But my point is that the forgiveness of sins is inherently dealing in matters relating to imputation: is the sin counted or not counted to you, and that it is that, the being gratuitously counted as righteous in spite of our merits, that Paul is highlighting in the passage there. What Paul is saying is not that David had some kind of repentance and so inner righteousness and so was forgiven and considered blessed. Rather, his focus is solely on how David is blessed and righteous because he is forgiven, rather than because of works done. Note the direction of how righteousness relates to forgiveness of sins and being blessed in the last two sentences.

But because I do not think that we will meet the standard of God's law in this life

I think you are correct for many, if not most Christians. But I also genuinely believe that many of the saints were able to completely cease all inclination to sin in this life. And I believe that for the the rest it happens during Purgation after death.

We do not enter heaven by loving God and our neighbor

100% agreed here, we can only enter heaven by Jesus's sacrifice.

When a sin is forgiven it is forgiven because God forgives it. God does not count the sin on you, yes. Jesus has told visionaries that He can't even remember the sins they've confessed. (Obviously a bit of a metaphor, as God knows everything.)

I think the radical thing Catholics believe, that you disagree with, is that the forgiveness of sins is not itself sufficient for Heaven. (The forgiveness of sins means that a Christian is going to Heaven, but it doesn't mean by itself that the Christian is ready for Heaven.) In order for Heaven to not be a tyranny, the people in it need to have willingly let go of attachments to sin as well. We lose this attachment in this life, little by little, by willfully forming the habit of conforming to God's will. And if there is any attachment to sin left over at the moment of death, it needs to be removed by the cooperation of God and the sinner. (Put out of your head any specific idea of a place of Purgatory. I'm referencing just the idea of purgation, whether that's an instantaneous change or a difficult trial.)

But I also genuinely believe that many of the saints were able to completely cease all inclination to sin in this life.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

I think the radical thing Catholics believe, that you disagree with, is that the forgiveness of sins is not itself sufficient for Heaven. (The forgiveness of sins means that a Christian is going to Heaven, but it doesn't mean by itself that the Christian is ready for Heaven.)

I agree.

In order for Heaven to not be a tyranny, the people in it need to have willingly let go of attachments to sin as well. We lose this attachment in this life, little by little, by willfully forming the habit of conforming to God's will. And if there is any attachment to sin left over at the moment of death, it needs to be removed by the cooperation of God and the sinner. (Put out of your head any specific idea of a place of Purgatory. I'm referencing just the idea of purgation, whether that's an instantaneous change or a difficult trial.)

I of course agree that our will needs to be transformed and conformed to God's.

You know you guys are splitting hairs over something that to people looking in from a rational outside perspective is all just make-believe. You're arguing over fantasy stories like they are real.

Look, you weren't part of this conversation, but you felt a need to drop a shit in the middle of it why?

In a very short period of time, you've established that you're an antagonistic jerk who shits on conversations like it's your hobby.

You're getting a 3-day timeout for this. If you want to continue participating here, stop treating this place like somewhere you go to drunkpost and sneer.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats