If it's True That Justification by Faith ...

[Eleanor]

I realize that that's why I'm asking why it wasn't the first epistle written seeing that it contains the article by which a church stands or falls, namely, justification by faith alone.

See posts #105, #115, #128, #133.

 

[prism]

See posts #105, #115, #128, #133.

Four non-rhetorical questions answers nothing for me.

 

[Josheb]

I realize that that's why I'm asking why it wasn't the first epistle written seeing that it contains the article by which a church stands or falls, namely, justification by faith alone.

let me make sure I correctly understand what you're asking. Is the question you want answered.....


Since Romans is the epistle that explains the article upon which the Church stands (justification)..... why was it not the first letter written?


Is that what you are asking?

 

[prism]

let me make sure I correctly understand what you're asking. Is the question you want answered.....


Since Romans is the epistle that explains the article upon which the Church stands (justification)..... why was it not the first letter written?


Is that what you are asking?

By Paul, especially since it most clearly explains justification.

 

[EarlyActs]

You gone off to a rabbit trail.

But your definitions of justification don't show that you understand the material difference. Most people think it is an 'initial experience' for a Christian. That's not the idea at all, as found in Romans and Galatians.

 

[brightfame52]

But your definitions of justification don't show that you understand the material difference. Most people think it is an 'initial experience' for a Christian. That's not the idea at all, as found in Romans and Galatians.

Rabbit trail

 

[Josheb]

By Paul, especially since it most clearly explains justification.

Ummmmm..... not an answer to my question. Is the question you are asking.....

Since Romans is the epistle that explains the article upon which the Church stands (justification)..... why was it not the first letter written by Paul? Why wasn't Paul's first letter the book of Romans? Why wasn't Paul's first letter the one in which he explained justification?​

Is that what you're asking?

And, if so......., do you not already know the answer to that question?

 

[EarlyActs]

Rabbit trail

Justification has to do with sin-as-debt, not with sin as impure behavior. It’s about past actions, not present behavior. There is no (zero) amount of human behavior that can given to God as credit for our debt. Only Christ—God himself.

Some rabbit hole.

 

[EarlyActs]

Rabbit trail

Justification has to do with sin-as-debt, not current actions to do good.

And it has to be imputed, or transferred as with an account. The side effect of this is a changed life, but that’s a side effect , not justification itself.

Some rabbit trail.

 

[brightfame52]

Justification has to do with sin-as-debt, not with sin as impure behavior. It’s about past actions, not present behavior. There is no (zero) amount of human behavior that can given to God as credit for our debt. Only Christ—God himself.

Some rabbit hole.

Rabbit trail

 

[Hazelelponi]

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

I will give you my answer if you want.

The Epistles are historical documents, and each one was written in response to the particular issues facing its intended church. Paul addressed matters as they arose, pastorally and doctrinally.

By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had already founded several churches and had grown more seasoned in his apostolic ministry. The letter to the Romans stands out not only because it was written to a church he did not plant, but also because it was addressed to a more established congregation—one in need of foundational instruction rather than urgent correction.

While Paul certainly taught justification by faith alone earlier (see Galatians), Romans differs in that it lays out that doctrine with greater theological maturity and systematic care. Most of Paul’s teaching had been delivered in person, but Romans presents a comprehensive written exposition designed to ground the faith of a mature church with pastoral depth and doctrinal clarity.

 

[Eleanor]

Four non-rhetorical questions answers nothing for me.

Which explains why you don't know why Romans was not the first letter written.

 

[prism]

Ummmmm..... not an answer to my question. Is the question you are asking.....

Since Romans is the epistle that explains the article upon which the Church stands (justification)..... why was it not the first letter written by Paul? Why wasn't Paul's first letter the book of Romans? Why wasn't Paul's first letter the one in which he explained justification?​

Is that what you're asking?

And, if so......., do you not already know the answer to that question?

I'm asking it as a 'why not', not as a 'why' question.

 

[EarlyActs]

Rabbit trail

What do you mean? There are some 10K words in most English speakers vocab. Could you perhaps use others. If not, I'll just put you on ignore.

 

[EarlyActs]

I will give you my answer if you want.

The Epistles are historical documents, and each one was written in response to the particular issues facing its intended church. Paul addressed matters as they arose, pastorally and doctrinally.

By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he had already founded several churches and had grown more seasoned in his apostolic ministry. The letter to the Romans stands out not only because it was written to a church he did not plant, but also because it was addressed to a more established congregation—one in need of foundational instruction rather than urgent correction.

While Paul certainly taught justification by faith alone earlier (see Galatians), Romans differs in that it lays out that doctrine with greater theological maturity and systematic care. Most of Paul’s teaching had been delivered in person, but Romans presents a comprehensive written exposition designed to ground the faith of a mature church with pastoral depth and doctrinal clarity.

Another thing to compare here is the date of the synagogue talk in Pisidia, Acts 13. It climaxes on justification in a version that exults in it because it completes the promises to the fathers. After all, we do have to remember that justification is part of the promise package from all the way back, and in Galatians, where we know how momentous it is to understand justification, it is discussed because it was the Promise (many versions have gone to capitalizing Promise because it is contrasted with the Law).

Many scholars follow the verbal trail of early Christian teaching, of Acts 2, 3, 4, then 9, 10, 11, and it shows a 'life of Christ' getting longer and more developed. While the most important feature of Peter's first 3 talks are that Christ is enthroned, the 'wiping away' (a bookkeeping term similar to 'crediting' used by Paul) is in Acts 3, as a fulfillment that the OT said would happen when Messiah came.

 

[brightfame52]

What do you mean? There are some 10K words in most English speakers vocab. Could you perhaps use others. If not, I'll just put you on ignore.

Yeah put me on ignore

 

[Hazelelponi]

Another thing to compare here is the date of the synagogue talk in Pisidia, Acts 13. It climaxes on justification in a version that exults in it because it completes the promises to the fathers. After all, we do have to remember that justification is part of the promise package from all the way back, and in Galatians, where we know how momentous it is to understand justification, it is discussed because it was the Promise (many versions have gone to capitalizing Promise because it is contrasted with the Law).

Many scholars follow the verbal trail of early Christian teaching, of Acts 2, 3, 4, then 9, 10, 11, and it shows a 'life of Christ' getting longer and more developed. While the most important feature of Peter's first 3 talks are that Christ is enthroned, the 'wiping away' (a bookkeeping term similar to 'crediting' used by Paul) is in Acts 3, as a fulfillment that the OT said would happen when Messiah came.

Very true, and I thank you for the excellent insights.

Really good insight on the “wiping away” in Acts 3, too. That connection to imputation language is a strong one.

Plus, we certainly should always keep the fulfillment aspect of this being rooted in Abrahamic promise front and center as well.

Your thoughts are much appreciated, thank you.

God bless you and your family.

 

[makesends]

I never said faith doesnt have a role in Justification/Salvation, Ive demonstrated that one is Justified b4 God based on Christ alone b4 Faith or believing

So far as I have seen, all you have proven is that you take the verses you use, according to what you see happening in temporal sequence alone —not causal sequence— and that not only do you take the verses you do in a eisegetical, subjective, way, but that your eisegesis is based on an entirely skewed view of reality—ENTIRELY temporal. But further, you ignore the obvious implications of your stance: You will not admit that if Justification, which, granted, was completed at the cross, is indeed applied at the cross, to the effect that even before a person is regenerated he is entirely justified, and the regeneration does not bring it about in any way, then so it is implied that the same must be true about the other things that were accomplished at the cross, to include our very salvation. Whether you realize it or not, you are monstrously implying that the elect are not under condemnation, but are indwelt by the Spirit of God even from conception.

 

[brightfame52]

So far as I have seen, all you have proven is that you take the verses you use, according to what you see happening in temporal sequence alone —not causal sequence— and that not only do you take the verses you do in a eisegetical, subjective, way, but that your eisegesis is based on an entirely skewed view of reality—ENTIRELY temporal. But further, you ignore the obvious implications of your stance: You will not admit that if Justification, which, granted, was completed at the cross, is indeed applied at the cross, to the effect that even before a person is regenerated he is entirely justified, and the regeneration does not bring it about in any way, then so it is implied that the same must be true about the other things that were accomplished at the cross, to include our very salvation. Whether you realize it or not, you are monstrously implying that the elect are not under condemnation, but are indwelt by the Spirit of God even from conception.

Thats what you see

 

[makesends]

Thats what you see

"Yes. That's pretty much what I said." Reminds me of the conversation I had with the dental implants surgeon. I said that it had been pretty obvious that, since the surgery, there was a hole in my upper jaw bone into my sinus above it. "When I stifle a sneeze, it sounds like bagpipes played badly." He responds with, "Oooh. That doesn't sound good!" I said, "Well, no! —But about the sinus problem..."

Have you an answer, why you harp only on justification, and not the rest of what Scripture refers to as effected by [at least] regeneration and God's gift of faith, and not only accomplished at the cross? Salvation itself, for instance...