If it's true, that 'justification by faith' is the article by which the church stands or falls, then why did not Paul write the book of Romans first, since the book of Romans is foundational to the article of justification?
Instead, most scholars believe it was 1 Thessalonians. At least Martin Luther was consistent in this that he placed Romans as the first written epistle
How about clarifying the specific point of inquiry or comment being asserted, and asserted for discussion?
Is the point being asserted "
Romans is the first epistle written because it teaches the article by which the Church stands or falls"? If so, then a false cause fallacy has been committed (foundational articles do not determine the date when something is written).
Is the point being asserted, "
Justification cannot be the article upon which the Church stands or falls because Paul did not write Romans until late in his life/career"? If so, then another false cause fallacy is being employed because the veracity of an article is not determined by when it was written.
Is the point being asserted, "
Martin Luther was correct to assert an early date for Romans because of the inclusion of the foundational article of justification by faith (upon which the Church stands or falls), and all the other theologians over the last millennium have all been wrong"? If so, then not only is that another false cause fallacy but it's also an appeal to authority and a straw man because Luther considered Romans "first" in ordinance, not chronology. Furthermore, I'm not sure anyone can assert Luther's perspective on the veracity and chronology of the Bible's books over more scientific measures given his mixed history as a textual critic. He was not an expert on the matter. Just saying.
Beside all of the above, I would not call justification by faith (alone)
the article upon which the Church stands or falls. That article would be either the divinity of Christ or the resurrection. If Christ is not divine, then he's not the monogene sarx egentos and we are all still lost and dead in sin. If there is no resurrection, then not only are we all still lost and dead in sin but we are all also the most pitiful people who ever live. When speaking of any "article," it must be clarified whether the word is a reference to an axiom, a logical necessity or a doctrinal supposition. There is context to the Reformation's stand on justification by faith. That context is as a protest against the Roman Catholic viewpoint justification is not by faith alone. Furthermore, justification in Roman Catholicism is synonymous with salvation and that is not a correct reflect of scripture (or Protestantism per se). In addition to these points, it must be understood that Paul's commentary on justification in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 2-3 (as well as that of James in his epistle) was written to those already saved. When Paul states "
you have been justified....." that audience is the already-saved, not the unregenerate. Even when he states, "
we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28) he is writing about the saints, those
already living in a God initiated Christological covenant relationship. He's not writing about Caral-Supe, Olmecs, Mayans, Yayoi, or Aborigines of the first century.
Or is this op about the chronology of the Pauline epistles because there are fairly well-established reasons for the consensus
(but I do not read any of them mentioned in the op)?
What is the specific point of inquiry or comment intended for discussion?
yes. I believe you would.
