Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Justification By Faith

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Justification By Faith
  • Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 19:04:17 -0600


Frank Glenn wrote:

> At 12:03 PM 3/29/99 -0600, Bill wrote:
> (snip)
> >Romans is marvelously systematic and I depend primarily on it here, though
> >the rest of the Bible is consistent with Paul's doctrines presented here.
>
> Eh, forgive my butting in, but you'll have a hard time convincing
> Matthew (of the Gospel), James (of the Epistle), and a whole bunch of Hebrew
> Bible authors and editors that they've suddenly been baptized as people who
> but the generally bankrupt (IMO) theology of substitutionary atonement. I
> thought this list was going to take Paul's writings and read them without
> preconceived "theology".
>

[snip]

> So we also have a savior on a white horse or some kind of bank
> account of grace or the harrowing of hell or the rest of it? Come on. I
> don't want to violate the Netiquette and be offensive, but what we have here
> is simply an attempt to preempt any discussion with asserting conclusions.
>

Frank,

I think it is a little presumptuous to assume that the perspective of the
message
you're reacting to represents what "this List" is or is not going to do. In
any
case, if you want to argue that Paul's concept of justification has nothing
to do
with substitutionary views of the atonement ( let alone that substitutionary
views are
not supported by a goodly portion of other NT writers), a far more helpful
approach--and one, I might add, that *is* consistent with the purpose and the
netiquette of the List-- would be for you to lay out your reasons why this is
a
mistaken reading of Paul. I think a discussion of the import and meaning
of Paul's
"death for our sins" and death for others" language, from which the (hardly
unattested) view that Paul *is* a "substitutionist" or a pre-Anselm
Anselmian, would
be an exciting thread to pursue. But a response such as that which appears
above
doesn't take us very far in that direction.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page