Exegetical examination of Romans 4:6-8

[The Biblicist]

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

1. "even as" - Greek "kathaper" is an adverb used 13 times in the New Testament and is translated in the KJV as 7, even as 5, as well as 1; 13 and shows connection between something previously said before with something that follows.

The adverb "Kathaper" joins together verse 5 to verses 6-8 or the use of David to further illustrate and reinforce his point made in verse 5. The immediate statement that "kathaper" connects verse 5 with in verse 6 is "God imputeth righteousness without works" thus carrying the theme of imputed righteousness from verses, 3 and 5 into verse 6 in the illustration of David and Psalm 32. Absolute proof that it is this theme being carried over to be illustrated and reinforced by David is the fact that verse 6 contains the reason for using David while only verses 7-8 contain the actual words of David "Saying". Thus verse 6 gives Paul's purpose for using David, whereas verses 7-8 give the actual words of David. The purpose stated proves that "katheper" connects the idea of imputed righteousness in verse 5 to David's words in verses 7-8 as that is precisely what is stated by Paul in verse 6.

Imputed righteousness and remission of sins are essential and inherent aspects of any Biblical concept of justification as justification "before God" (Rom. 4:1) is impossible without dealing with the issue of sin that separates man from God.

Sin is explained by Scripture to be INCLUSIVE of both commission and omission. The active obedience of Christ as revealed in his life as the lamb without spot and blemish deals with omission while commission must be satisfied by the passive obedience of Christ which provides the basis for remission of sins. Justification is empty and meaningless unless it encompasses both aspects of sin. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of God revealed in the personal active obedient life of Christ that is imputed by faith and thus "justified by faith."

Psalm 32 demonstrates that the child of God is not without PERSONAL sin and thus the necessity for imputation as David neither could provide either the active obedience to satisfy the Law of God to be justified and neither the passive obedience to satisfy the Law of God to obtain remission of sins. Thus both are obtained "without works" (v. 6) and "by faith" in the Person and works of Jesus Christ as Christ finished/satisfied both by his active and passive obedience to God's law, thus fulfilling it and becoming "the end of the law" to all who believe in him.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

1. "even as" - Greek "kathaper" is an adverb used 13 times in the New Testament and is translated in the KJV as 7, even as 5, as well as 1; 13 and shows connection between something previously said before with something that follows.

The adverb "Kathaper" joins together verse 5 to verses 6-8 or the use of David to further illustrate and reinforce his point made in verse 5. The immediate statement that "kathaper" connects verse 5 with in verse 6 is "God imputeth righteousness without works" thus carrying the theme of imputed righteousness from verses, 3 and 5 into verse 6 in the illustration of David and Psalm 32. Absolute proof that it is this theme being carried over to be illustrated and reinforced by David is the fact that verse 6 contains the reason for using David while only verses 7-8 contain the actual words of David "Saying". Thus verse 6 gives Paul's purpose for using David, whereas verses 7-8 give the actual words of David. The purpose stated proves that "katheper" connects the idea of imputed righteousness in verse 5 to David's words in verses 7-8 as that is precisely what is stated by Paul in verse 6.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

First, take note that "even as" joins with or carries over the conclusive phrase of verse 5 "his faith is counted for righteousness" to "imputeth righteousness without works" in verse 6 as the continued subject and purpose for introducing David's words in Psalm 32.

Second, take note that verse 6 does not include David's words contained in Psalm 32 but are Paul's words that introduce the reason why he is using the words of David in Psalm 32. He is using them to reinforce "imputeth righteousness without works" as declared in verse 5. That is his reason for quoting David.

Hence, this demonstrates that David's words about remission of sins are necessary to understand Pauls' doctrine of "imputeth righteousnesss without works" as that is the precise purpose "even as" is used to connect verse 5 to verse 6 and that is the precise purpose stated by Paul in verse 6 for using David's words in Psalm 32.

What I have said above and in the first post is exegetically sound and cannot possibly be overthrown by HONEST exegesis.

Now, it remains to show how the words of David in Psalm 32 reinforce and thus help the reader understand why remission of sins in verses 7-8 is essential to understand justification and imputed righteousness without works as clearly stated in verse 5 and repeated in verse 6 as the reason for introducing David. That will be the subject of our next post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

First, take note that "even as" joins with or carries over the conclusive phrase of verse 5 "his faith is counted for righteousness" to "imputeth righteousness without works" in verse 6 as the continued subject and purpose for introducing David's words in Psalm 32.

Second, take note that verse 6 does not include David's words contained in Psalm 32 but are Paul's words that introduce the reason why he is using the words of David in Psalm 32. He is using them to reinforce "imputeth righteousness without works" as declared in verse 5. That is his reason for quoting David.

Hence, this demonstrates that David's words about remission of sins are necessary to understand Pauls' doctrine of "imputeth righteousnesss without works" as that is the precise purpose "even as" is used to connect verse 5 to verse 6 and that is the precise purpose stated by Paul in verse 6 for using David's words in Psalm 32.

What I have said above and in the first post is exegetically sound and cannot possibly be overthrown by HONEST exegesis.

Now, it remains to show how the words of David in Psalm 32 reinforce and thus help the reader understand why remission of sins in verses 7-8 is essential to understand justification and imputed righteousness without works as clearly stated in verse 5 and repeated in verse 6 as the reason for introducing David. That will be the subject of our next post.

Why is remission of sins essential to understand Paul's doctrine of imputed righteousness without works? That was the exegetical based conclusion of our last post. If you have problems with that then deal with the last post.

1. The subject in verse 5 is "the ungodly" and the subject in Psalm 32 is a confessed sinner, therefore both are people who are not without sin.

2. There is no such thing as "righteousness" in God's sight that is inclusive of sin, as sin can never be justified as righteous in the sight of God (Rom. 4:1). Hence, remission of sin must not only accompany imputation of righteousness for justification to be possible but is necessarily INSEPARABLE with and thus INCLUSIVE with imputed righteousness for justification "before God" to be possible.

3. Where there is no remission of sins there can be no imputed righteousness and thus no justification and that is precisely why verse 6 carries over the idea of imputed righteousness to be connected with remission of sin as seen in David's words about remission of sins.

4. It is this combination of imputed righteousness WITH remission of sins that makes the "ungodly" and the sinful David to be a "blessed man." Without either, there is no justification possible but only a condemned man rather than a blessed man. That is why Paul connects "even as" verse 5 with verses 6-8 in regard to imputed righteousness as it is imputed righteousness that is carried over from verse 5 and repeated again in verse 6 as the stated purpose.

5. Sin cannot be dealt with apart from these two aspects. The active obedience of Christ provides the righteousness to deal with sins of omission while the passive obedience of Christ on the cross deals with sins of commission. Christ's active obedience or the righteousness of God is imputed by faith whereas Christ's passive obedience obtains remission of sins. The sins of the believer are imputed to Christ and thus Christ was "made to be sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Notice that 2 Cor. 5:21 contains both aspects of righteousness and remission in the active and passive obedience of Christ.

6. This is the essence of justififcation as it is inclusive of the active and passive obedience of Christ applied to the sinner by faith. The "blessed man" is the man who obtain righteousness imputed by faith and remission of sins based upon his sins imputed to Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why is remission of sins essential to understand Paul's doctrine of imputed righteousness without works? That was the exegetical based conclusion of our last post. If you have problems with that then deal with the last post.

1. The subject in verse 5 is "the ungodly" and the subject in Psalm 32 is a confessed sinner, therefore both are people who are not without sin.

2. There is no such thing as "righteousness" in God's sight that is inclusive of sin, as sin can never be justified as righteous in the sight of God (Rom. 4:1). Hence, remission of sin must not only accompany imputation of righteousness for justification to be possible but is necessarily INSEPARABLE with and thus INCLUSIVE with imputed righteousness for justification "before God" to be possible.

3. Where there is no remission of sins there can be no imputed righteousness and thus no justification and that is precisely why verse 6 carries over the idea of imputed righteousness to be connected with remission of sin as seen in David's words about remission of sins.

4. It is this combination of imputed righteousness WITH remission of sins that makes the "ungodly" and the sinful David to be a "blessed man." Without either, there is no justification possible but only a condemned man rather than a blessed man. That is why Paul connects "even as" verse 5 with verses 6-8 in regard to imputed righteousness as it is imputed righteousness that is carried over from verse 5 and repeated again in verse 6 as the stated purpose.

5. Sin cannot be dealt with apart from these two aspects. The active obedience of Christ provides the righteousness to deal with sins of omission while the passive obedience of Christ on the cross deals with sins of commission. Christ's active obedience or the righteousness of God is imputed by faith whereas Christ's passive obedience obtains remission of sins. The sins of the believer are imputed to Christ and thus Christ was "made to be sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Notice that 2 Cor. 5:21 contains both aspects of righteousness and remission in the active and passive obedience of Christ.

6. This is the essence of justififcation as it is inclusive of the active and passive obedience of Christ applied to the sinner by faith. The "blessed man" is the man who obtain righteousness imputed by faith and remission of sins based upon his sins imputed to Christ.

Romans 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven , and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

In the two enlarged and underlined verbals in verse 7 above it is the Aorist passive indicative which is used. The Aorist tense conveys the idea of completed action. Sins are not BEING progressively forgiven but have been forgiven.

The passive tense denies those forgiven were active in granting this forgiveness. They were passive. God is the one who forgave and only God can forgive.

In verse 8 Paul uses the Aorist SUBJUNCTIVE with a double negative. This is grammatically significant. The Aorist subjunctive with the double negative "ou me" forbids even the remote possibility of any future event where God will charge sin to them. This is far stronger words than the words of Jesus "shall not come into condemnation."

God is not in any kind of progressive incompleted action of forgiving the sins of the "blessed man" but it is regarded as a completed finished action without any remote possibility that God could charge that person with sin in the future.


Hence, the remission of sin is as complete and permenant as the righteousness of God imputed to the believer.

Together, it demands that the "blessed man" is completely SINLESS in the eyes of God which the term "justified" conveys.

However, that sinlessness is not in regard to their own person as Psalms 32 proves. David was not without sin in regard to his own person. David was not righteous in regard to his own person. His murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba AS A BELEIVER proves no such sinlessness or righteousness existed in his own person. Nor does it exist in the person of believers today (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

In addition, the one in verse five is described as "ungodly" in regard to his own person. Therefore, righteousness by imputation cannot refer to personal righteousness found in the person of the "ungodly." It is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ and is obtained by faith not faithfulness through imputation not impartation. Our faithfulness and imparted righteousness is not without sinfulness and therefore is not the basis for justification before God.

As the concluding application in Romans 4:25 demonstrates this sinless condition before God is found in their legal position through representation by Christ:

Rom. 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

As 2 Cor. 5:21 demonstrates, this sinlness condition is found only "in Christ" as their representative "for us."

This is the basis for calling that person the "blessed man" which is one and the same thing as calling him a "justified" man!

Furthermore, this "blessed" condition is not a progressive incompleted action as Romans 4:9-12 proves. Instead it occurs at the moment of faith (Rom. 4:3) prior to any connection with divine rites (vv. 9-10). Thus divine rites do not convey this blessedness/justification in any way shape or form except by FIGURE/TYPE/SYMBOL.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

1. "even as" - Greek "kathaper" is an adverb used 13 times in the New Testament and is translated in the KJV as 7, even as 5, as well as 1; 13 and shows connection between something previously said before with something that follows.

The adverb "Kathaper" joins together verse 5 to verses 6-8 or the use of David to further illustrate and reinforce his point made in verse 5. The immediate statement that "kathaper" connects verse 5 with in verse 6 is "God imputeth righteousness without works" thus carrying the theme of imputed righteousness from verses, 3 and 5 into verse 6 in the illustration of David and Psalm 32. Absolute proof that it is this theme being carried over to be illustrated and reinforced by David is the fact that verse 6 contains the reason for using David while only verses 7-8 contain the actual words of David "Saying". Thus verse 6 gives Paul's purpose for using David, whereas verses 7-8 give the actual words of David. The purpose stated proves that "katheper" connects the idea of imputed righteousness in verse 5 to David's words in verses 7-8 as that is precisely what is stated by Paul in verse 6.

Imputed righteousness and remission of sins are essential and inherent aspects of any Biblical concept of justification as justification "before God" (Rom. 4:1) is impossible without dealing with the issue of sin that separates man from God.

Sin is explained by Scripture to be INCLUSIVE of both commission and omission. The active obedience of Christ as revealed in his life as the lamb without spot and blemish deals with omission while commission must be satisfied by the passive obedience of Christ which provides the basis for remission of sins. Justification is empty and meaningless unless it encompasses both aspects of sin. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of God revealed in the personal active obedient life of Christ that is imputed by faith and thus "justified by faith."

Psalm 32 demonstrates that the child of God is not without PERSONAL sin and thus the necessity for imputation as David neither could provide either the active obedience to satisfy the Law of God to be justified and neither the passive obedience to satisfy the Law of God to obtain remission of sins. Thus both are obtained "without works" (v. 6) and "by faith" in the Person and works of Jesus Christ as Christ finished/satisfied both by his active and passive obedience to God's law, thus fulfilling it and becoming "the end of the law" to all who believe in him.

As I've stated before you post so many things its difficult to reply to all assertions. But this is a discussion which you wanted to have and so we'll have it regarding Romans Chapter 4. Though starting out as you have you kind of frame the discussion by starting out with the supposition that particularily Romans 4:6-8 stands out apart from the rest of the text which it does not. It is a part of a larger discourse. So already with the inherent supposition which you apply specifying Romans 4:6-8 apart fromt he larger context of Paul's discourse cannot within itself provide for a proper exegetical understanding. Thus pulling out a singular passage from out of a context which it finds itself and applying definition doesn't mean you've taken it within its context or properly exegeted that passage. Thus with exegesis in mind we must consider all the requirements

Biblical exegesis is a systematic process by which a person arrives at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a biblical passage. Ideally, an understanding of the original texts (Greek and Hebrew) is required. In the process of exegesis, a passage must be viewed in its historical and grammatical context with its time/purpose of writing taken into account. This is often accomodated by asking:

•Who wrote the text, and who is the intended readership?
•What is the context of the text, i.e. how does it fit in the author's larger thought process, purpose, or argument in the chapter and book where it resides?
•Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?
•Why was the text written (e.g. to correct, encourage, or explain, etc.)?
•When was the text written? -Theopedia

of which you have only applied a limited understanding of a couple of Greek words.
Now certainly this discussion is a carry over from our previous discussion regarding this topic from the Orthodox Christian Thread trying in which you suggest that in Paul's discourse there is an inherent "refutation of Sacraments". I of course opposed that view explaining two things 1) You are not properly presenting an accurate view of what is properly held regarding the sacraments and 2) By doing so you miss and have taken Romans 4:6-8 out of context. In our discussion I suggest that particularily the verse you show

6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

with in the greater context of Paul's discourse to the Romans is not the main thrust of his point but supportive documentation (so to speak) using a quote from King David to bolster his position. Ie using it as an example of his point which he is making. The point itself is not vs 6-8 but rather what he says just preceeding vs. 6-8 but that these verses are used to support the statement Paul makes in the prior verses 4-5

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

saying that it is faith rather than the works of the law of themselves that one is "counted as righteousness" then referring to verses 6-8 connecting David's Blessing of forgiveness because it given rather than paid for by the sinner. Which as Paul points out in vs 4 that the person who works isn't given the gift, Ie... forgivenesss freely given and thus blessed, but has gotten his due. Where Paul in the following verses namely vs 9-10 referrs specifically what he is talking about where one may think they can earn righteouness independent of faith particularily

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised

Circumcision. Which goes back to what Paul had mentioned towards the begining points he made with regard to circumcision in chapter 2 verses 25-29

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically[c] uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Because Paul in Chapter 4:2 suggest that

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about

which is directed to those is speaking two in Chapter 2

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God

who are rellying on the work of their circumcision to Justify them when he explains that no you must first have faith. Which again is the thrust of the argument in chapter 4.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Continued...

Thus when you say that

"even as" - Greek "kathaper" is an adverb used 13 times in the New Testament and is translated in the KJV as 7, even as 5, as well as 1; 13 and shows connection between something previously said before with something that follows.

You are correct but not in the sense you intend. Rather "even as" is making the connection between the support (example) Paul uses and the previous verse to vs. 6 which says

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

to the free gift of forgiveness that David speaks as blessed rather than the one who has to pay for his debt. Therefore taking into context of the whole the thrust is that it is faith that justifies rather than the work of the law without faith which what is specifically discussed is circumcision. Thus the thrust in Pauls discourse is the primacy of Faith. And how do we know that Faith must preceed a work? Well, Paul points it out in vs. 10-11

How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well

Saying that Faith proceeded the work. The Faith justifies the activity seals it. Similarily to what James mentions when he says that

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works - James 2:22

Which shows internal consistancy of scripture as a whole.

 

[The Biblicist]

Romans 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven , and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

In the two enlarged and underlined verbals in verse 7 above it is the Aorist passive indicative which is used. The Aorist tense conveys the idea of completed action. Sins are not BEING progressively forgiven but have been forgiven.

The passive tense denies those forgiven were active in granting this forgiveness. They were passive. God is the one who forgave and only God can forgive.

In verse 8 Paul uses the Aorist SUBJUNCTIVE with a double negative. This is grammatically significant. The Aorist subjunctive with the double negative "ou me" forbids even the remote possibility of any future event where God will charge sin to them. This is far stronger words than the words of Jesus "shall not come into condemnation."

God is not in any kind of progressive incompleted action of forgiving the sins of the "blessed man" but it is regarded as a completed finished action without any remote possibility that God could charge that person with sin in the future.


Hence, the remission of sin is as complete and permenant as the righteousness of God imputed to the believer.

Together, it demands that the "blessed man" is completely SINLESS in the eyes of God which the term "justified" conveys.

However, that sinlessness is not in regard to their own person as Psalms 32 proves. David was not without sin in regard to his own person. David was not righteous in regard to his own person. His murder of Uriah and his adultery with Bathsheba AS A BELEIVER proves no such sinlessness or righteousness existed in his own person. Nor does it exist in the person of believers today (1 Jn. 1:8-10).

In addition, the one in verse five is described as "ungodly" in regard to his own person. Therefore, righteousness by imputation cannot refer to personal righteousness found in the person of the "ungodly." It is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ and is obtained by faith not faithfulness through imputation not impartation. Our faithfulness and imparted righteousness is not without sinfulness and therefore is not the basis for justification before God.

As the concluding application in Romans 4:25 demonstrates this sinless condition before God is found in their legal position through representation by Christ:

Rom. 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

As 2 Cor. 5:21 demonstrates, this sinlness condition is found only "in Christ" as their representative "for us."

This is the basis for calling that person the "blessed man" which is one and the same thing as calling him a "justified" man!

Furthermore, this "blessed" condition is not a progressive incompleted action as Romans 4:9-12 proves. Instead it occurs at the moment of faith (Rom. 4:3) prior to any connection with divine rites (vv. 9-10). Thus divine rites do not convey this blessedness/justification in any way shape or form except by FIGURE/TYPE/SYMBOL.

In our previous post we have shown that the subject being justified or the "blessed" man is not righteous in their own person but in their own person they are "ungodly" (v. 5) and a professed sinner (murder, adulterer - vv. 7-8 with Psa. 32). Hence, this righteousness is not something obtained by gradual impartation to their own person due to personal faithfulness but rather is something external to their own person found in another person who acted as their legal representative, who was accepted by God in their position, in the sight of God. This is a legal transaction that occurred in heaven not on earth and the nature of that transaction is legal imputation received by those on earth at the moment of faith in Christ as revealed through the gospel (Rom. 3:24-26) without consideration of their own works (Rom. 3:27-28; 4:5-6).

Now Paul reinforces that fact of blessedness by considering how it is related to two conditions of men before God (circumcision/uncircumcision). Circumcision is not only the very first act of submission to the ceremonial laws of God but is the token rite that pledges complete submission of the whole remaining life to all other external rites and commands given by God. In contrast, the uncircumcised condition would be a life wholly unrelated to external divine rites and obedience to all othercom mandments of God.

If justification were by progressive imparted righteousness then it would be restricted to that condition of men who were totally committed to all the rites and commandments of God. If it were totally unrelated to any rightousness found in the person of the justified, it would not be obtained through, by or in connection with any personal obedience to God's divine rites or commandments. Hence, "circumcision" characterizes personal righeousness before God whereas "uncircumcision" characterizes personal unrighteousness before God.

So now in Romans 4:9-12 Paul asks and answers "how" "when" and what about the relationship of this "blessedness" (justification) with both of these conditions.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Verse 9 - How does it come in regard to these two conditions?

Verse 10 - When was it reckoned in regard to these two conditions?

Verse 11 - What is its relationship to these two conditions?

Verse 9 provides only two alternatives concerning "how"

 

[The Biblicist]

Though starting out as you have you kind of frame the discussion by starting out with the supposition that particularily Romans 4:6-8 stands out apart from the rest of the text which it does not. It is a part of a larger discourse.

I have answered this objection so many times and not once have you ever responded! Here we go again and once again I don't expect you to respond because there is really no response you can make that is credible, reasonable or contextually rational to what I am going to say.

1. The book of Romans covers diverse and distinctly different aspects of our common salvation "the faith" that range from election to glorification.

2. Romans 1:18-3;23 deals with the sinfulness of man in light of God's wrath and judgement.

3. Romans 3;24-5:2 deals with the doctrine of justification of such sinners.

4. Romans 4:1-23 deals with Abraham as an example for Paul's doctrine of justification in relationship to faith versus various classifications of works.

5. Romans 4:1-5:2 is topically divided as follows:

a. Romans 4:1-3 Declaratory statement about Abraham and justification
b. Romans 4:4-5 principles to support previous statement
c. Romans 4:6-8 illustration to support previous principles and statement
d. Romans 4:9-12 consideration and application of justification in regard to circumcision and non-circumcision.
e. Romans 4:13-15 consideration and application of justification in regard to Mosaic Law
f. Romans 4:16-21 consideration and application of justification in regard to personal contributions to obtain Divine promises.
g. Romans 4:22-25 application of Abraham example to believers
h. Romans 5:1-2 conclusion drawn.

Now, I am dealing with Romans 4:6-8 in that contextual framework as a supportive illustration taken from Psalm 32 to reinforce the principles just previously laid down in Romans 4:4-5.

Now, we may disagree concerning the meaning and application of each of these clear contextual divisions - fine, but don't accuse me of failing to understand the developmental overall context and the immediate context of verses 6-8 unless you can prove that the above general divisions are not accurate.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thus when you say that You are correct but not in the sense you intend. Rather "even as" is making the connection between the support (example) Paul uses and the previous verse to vs. 6 which says

You siimply accused me falsely for not saying what I already said and acknowledged repeatedly! Did you even read my post? Both the first and second post emphasized this fact over and over and over and over again and yet you accuse me of failing to acknowledge that very fact. If you did read my first two posts, it must have been done superficially as you are accusing of failing to say what I emphatically said more than once - go back and read it again.


The adverb "Kathaper" joins together verse 5 to verses 6-8 or the use of David to further illustrate and reinforce his point made in verse 5. The immediate statement that "kathaper" connects verse 5 with in verse 6 is "God imputeth righteousness without works" thus carrying the theme of imputed righteousness from verses, 3 and 5 into verse 6 in the illustration of David and Psalm 32. Absolute proof that it is this theme being carried over to be illustrated and reinforced by David is the fact that verse 6 contains the reason for using David while only verses 7-8 contain the actual words of David "Saying". Thus verse 6 gives Paul's purpose for using David, whereas verses 7-8 give the actual words of David. The purpose stated proves that "katheper" connects the idea of imputed righteousness in verse 5 to David's words in verses 7-8 as that is precisely what is stated by Paul in verse 6.


We are not going to get anywhere if you don't read what I have said and don't acknowledge it. You simply built a straw man and burned it. NOW, don't respond until you carefully consider what I said in the above quote where my words are in bold and underlined. If you read it carefully, you will have to withdraw your charge that I was not considering verses 6-8 in direct relationship with verses 4-5 and that verses 6-8 is given as a supportive illustration to reinforce those principles and espeically the last phrase of verse 5 about imputation of righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

We are not going to get anywhere if you don't read what I have said and don't acknowledge it. You simply built a straw man and burned it. NOW, don't respond until you carefully consider what I said in the above quote where my words are in bold and underlined. If you read it carefully, you will have to withdraw your charge that I was not considering verses 6-8 in direct relationship with verses 4-5 and that verses 6-8 is given as a supportive illustration to reinforce those principles and espeically the last phrase of verse 5 about imputation of righteousness.

Please, let us both agree to keep our responses to one subject at a time rather than a plethora of subjects. Neither you nor I can deal with a plethora of subjects. So pick one thing in my post and direct your comments to that one thing before proceeding to something else and I will do the same thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have answered this objection so many times and not once have you ever responded!

You actually haven't responded to this specific assertion. What can be seen as the rest of your post shows how you attempt to seperate out the context by revealing how you divide the book. Here is your post.

1. The book of Romans covers diverse and distinctly different aspects of our common salvation "the faith" that range from election to glorification.

2. Romans 1:18-3;23 deals with the sinfulness of man in light of God's wrath and judgement.

3. Romans 3;24-5:2 deals with the doctrine of justification of such sinners.

4. Romans 4:1-23 deals with Abraham as an example for Paul's doctrine of justification in relationship to faith versus various classifications of works.

5. Romans 4:1-5:2 is topically divided as follows:

a. Romans 4:1-3 Declaratory statement about Abraham and justification
b. Romans 4:4-5 principles to support previous statement
c. Romans 4:6-8 illustration to support previous principles and statement
d. Romans 4:9-12 consideration and application of justification in regard to circumcision and non-circumcision.
e. Romans 4:13-15 consideration and application of justification in regard to Mosaic Law
f. Romans 4:16-21 consideration and application of justification in regard to personal contributions to obtain Divine promises.
g. Romans 4:22-25 application of Abraham example to believers
h. Romans 5:1-2 conclusion drawn.

Now the problem with providing this is obvious. You ignore a particular fact about scripture and its written text. What you supplied is an outline of different subjects which the letter of Romans covers. The problem with this as any student of the scripture will tell you is that outlines are derived from the people who attempt to organize it in such a manner so as to draw people to the area where certain topics are discussed. It is not how the book itself was written. Any student of the bible will tell you that the text written by the Apostles are not broken down into chapters or chapter headings or even with verses in mind. These are artificial devices which is catagorized later by biblical scholars to help people identify where certain things are. But each study bible version has a slightly differing catagorization break down. In short when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans he didn't first write down an outline but wrote freely about the subjects which were of consern for him. Which is problematic, as any bible student can tell you, that discussions don't always fit neatly into the later defined outline proposed by differeing bible scholars. A consept from one chapter may carry over into the next as the chapter break is artificial. This artificial outline which you propose is therefore unsufficient as an exegetical method. I can outline the bible for you as well
1. Prologue 1:1-15
A. Greeting 1:1-7
B. Prayer of Thanksgiving 1:8-15
2. Salvation in Christ 1:16-8:39
A. Theme: The Righteousness of God 1:16-17
B. Condemnation: The Universal Corruption of Gentiles and Jews 1:18-3:20
C. Justification: The Gift of Grace and Forgiveness through Faith 3:21-5:11
D. Jesus Christ the New Adam 5:12-21
E. Sanctification: Holiness in Christ 6:1-8:11
F. Glorification: The Spirit, Sonship, and Suffering 8:12-39
so on and so forth. That is why your answer is insufficient because you present and artificial device not initially put in the writer to help one place area's of consept. And that differs between bible and scholar.

Now, I am dealing with Romans 4:6-8 in that contextual framework as a supportive illustration taken from Psalm 32 to reinforce the principles just previously laid down in Romans 4:4-5.

First of all you should take Romans 4-6 in the contextual frame work of Pauls discussion in his writing of the book of Romans which I've pointed out for you. By the way These kind of challenges are getting tiring.

I don't expect you to respond because there is really no response you can make that is credible, reasonable or contextually rational to what I am going to say.

which of course I can respond to as I have just here but keep in mind your posting style you started this thread with 4 lengthy post to which by the time I read and spoke to your first post which required two post from me because of length you had already posted another post adding to your 4 post streak creating a large volume of stuff just to read much less reply to each assertion. And even as I write this post you've already posted 3 more post! So if I miss a " challenge" and not respond to it, it is not because I can't. Rather its because there is so much to deal with and I must pick and choose what specifically to respond to. I think you idea of the challenges is to imply my inability to respond. Which is why you do it to bolster your position rather than being an honest broker within the discussion. BTW this post answers both post 8 and 9 from you. Excuse me also add post 10 because they were all speaking of the same thing by you. So this one post is in response to post 1,9,8, and 10 in that your accusation is that I ignore your outline when in fact that doesn't provide veracity of what you believe the context of the particular verses mentioned as the outline is an artifice of your making or some other person's making rather than being a contextual analysis from the document itself.

 

[The Biblicist]

1. Prologue 1:1-15
A. Greeting 1:1-7
B. Prayer of Thanksgiving 1:8-15
2. Salvation in Christ 1:16-8:39
A. Theme: The Righteousness of God 1:16-17
B. Condemnation: The Universal Corruption of Gentiles and Jews 1:18-3:20
C. Justification: The Gift of Grace and Forgiveness through Faith 3:21-5:11
D. Jesus Christ the New Adam 5:12-21
E. Sanctification: Holiness in Christ 6:1-8:11
F. Glorification: The Spirit, Sonship, and Suffering 8:12-39

Look at your own outline! You have agreed with me that the book of Romans covers a diversly different topics in regard to salvation. Furthermore, there is no substantial difference between your outline and mine in regard to the subject of Romans 3:21-5:11 as both of us agree that the topic of justification is the subject from Romans 3:24-5:2 even though you include Romans 5:21 and then extend it to Romans 5:11 but we are agreed that the immediate context is justification. Hence, according to your own outline I have properly contextually identifed this portion of Romans as dedicated to the doctrine of justification.

Second, you did not attempt to deny the topical outline I gave for Romans 4! Why not if I was wrong? You know very well that my outline was GENERAL and not specific and it correctly provided the general outline of that chapter. Hence, you could not refute it.

Third, you did not attempt to deny that my outline description of Romans 4:6-8 was wrong. Indeed, in your former post where you addressed my comments on the words "even as" we both agreed that verses 6-8 was used by Paul to reinforce and further illustrate what he previously stated in verses 4-5.

So, your accusation that I have jerked verses 6-8 out of context is much to do about nothing and completely false as your own outline and comments on "even as" confirms that we are agreed on its contextual placement even though we may disagree about its meaning.

So lets drop the nonsensical accusation that I have taken it out of context and proceed to establish its meaning within the context we are mutually agree is found in the specific context of justification (Rom. 3:21-5:11 vs Rom. 3:24-5:2) and is specifically found in the context of Paul's use of Abraham as the example for his doctrine (Rom. 4:1-22) and Romans 4:6-8 is specifically being used in context to further confirm, illustrate what Paul has provided in principles previously stated in verses 4-5 which in turn are principles provided to affirm the statement made in verses 1-3.

Let us drop this nonsense and deal with the passage as we both agree about the context in general. We can both agree that Romans 4:1-22 is the use of Abraham by Paul to illustrate his doctrine of justification. Hence, let us then proceed to deal with verses 6-8 as it fits in his illustration of Abraham in that context. I have stated that Paul makes specific statements concerning Abraham and justification before God in verses 1-3. I have said that those statements are then immediately followed by stated principles in verses 4-5 to reaffirm his statements in verses 1-3. I have said that these principles in verses 4-5 are then followed immediately by an illustration taken from Psalm 32 to reaffirm the statement (vv. 1-3) and principles (vv. 4-5). Now, that is indisputably the preceding context of verses 6-8. So now let us discuss how that illustration affirms the previous verses and what it means and how it fits with the following statement in verses 9-11.

If you believe I am mistaken in regard to this contextual framework as generally outlined in the previous paragraph then point out specifically how I am wrong about its immediate context or drop this matter and lets get into its meaning in that context.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look at your own outline! You have agreed with me that the book of Romans covers a diversly different topics in regard to salvation. Furthermore, there is no substantial difference between your outline and mine in regard to the subject of Romans 3:21-5:11 as both of us agree that the topic of justification is the subject from Romans 3:24-5:2 even though you include Romans 5:21 and then extend it to Romans 5:11 but we are agreed that the immediate context is justification. Hence, according to your own outline I have properly contextually identifed this portion of Romans as dedicated to the doctrine of justification.

But its clear you failed to read where your problem lies. I don't disagree that in outlining Romans we can show topics which it covers. But that isn't the same as exegeting the passage. It is clear you haven't read my whole post which show where your reasoning goes off in exegeting that passage.

Now the problem with providing this is obvious. You ignore a particular fact about scripture and its written text. What you supplied is an outline of different subjects which the letter of Romans covers. The problem with this as any student of the scripture will tell you is that outlines are derived from the people who attempt to organize it in such a manner so as to draw people to the area where certain topics are discussed. It is not how the book itself was written. Any student of the bible will tell you that the text written by the Apostles are not broken down into chapters or chapter headings or even with verses in mind. These are artificial devices which is catagorized later by biblical scholars to help people identify where certain things are. But each study bible version has a slightly differing catagorization break down. In short when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans he didn't first write down an outline but wrote freely about the subjects which were of consern for him. Which is problematic, as any bible student can tell you, that discussions don't always fit neatly into the later defined outline proposed by differeing bible scholars. A consept from one chapter may carry over into the next as the chapter break is artificial. This artificial outline which you propose is therefore unsufficient as an exegetical method.

So yes Paul is speaking about Justification. I never denied that, but the context of the passage or the thrust of his point is that it is Faith by which one is Justified not making God owe you for by doing the work of the Law which is part of his discourse about the Jews in regards to justification. So providing an outline where something is found isn't the same as exegeting the passage. The context is developed from the text itself not the artificial outline applied to it. So yes you can find a discussion about justification in Chapters 3 and 4. But that doesn't mean that it is the totality of the teaching of Justification nor does it mean that it is about justification apart from any other consideration from the text which is why I find your point of outlining where things are in the letter as insufficient argument for the meaning of vs. 6-8.

 

[The Biblicist]

So providing an outline where something is found isn't the same as exegeting the passage.
The context is developed from the text itself not the artificial outline applied to it.

Another straw man argument. Can you cite me where I ever said that an outline equals exegesis? No you can't!

I gave a very specific purpose for providing the outline and it was not to provide an exegesis for Romans 4:6-8. Look at my outline for heaven sakes! It is so GENERAL and non-specific, how could you even imagine that I supplied it for anything other than demonstrating I understood the contextual framework of Romans 3:24-5:2 and nothing more?

You condemn me for jerking Romans 4:6-8 out of its context and failing to grasp the general context and when I supply an outline to show that I most certainly do understand the contextual framework in which Romans 4:6-8 is found you accuse me of providing that outline for exegetical explanations!!

Again, if my outline fails to provide the contextual frame of reference for Romans 4:6-8 then point that out or lets drop this absolute nonsense and proceed to the real task of exegeting that passage in what we both agree to be the context it is found and get to its meaning in that context.

I think what is very amusing is that you want me to concede I am wrong before we even proceed to examine Romans 4:6-8 to see who is right and wrong! Amusing indeed!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another straw man argument. Can you cite me where I ever said that an outline equals exegesis? No you can't!

The straw man is yours in that you use your outline to "prove" that Paul primary thrust in that verse you quote is only about justification rather than the interplay of faith, works of the law, in regards to that justification. And why you totally ignore the context of Paul dealing with Jews boasting over the gentiles with regard to circumcision.

I gave a very specific purpose for providing the outline and it was not to provide an exegesis for Romans 4:6-8. Look at my outline for heaven sakes! It is so GENERAL and non-specific, how could you even imagine that I supplied it for anything other than demonstrating I understood the contextual framework of Romans 3:24-5:2 and nothing more?

So let me point out here you are admitting that your outline provided isn't the basis for properly exegeting vs. 6-8? Good.

Again, if my outline fails to provide the contextual frame of reference for Romans 4:6-8 then point that out or lets drop this absolute nonsense and proceed to the real task of exegeting that passage in what we both agree to be the context it is found and get to its meaning in that context.

We obviously don't agree because I lined up my view of the passage clearly in post 5 and 6. Thus the connection applied to Paul's discourse is as supportive documentation (if you will or example) of his statement regarding that it is faith rather than works of the law of its own is that which justifies citing David saying the man is blessed who's sin is forgiven freely rather than paying for their debt.

 

[The Biblicist]

The straw man is yours in that you use your outline to "prove" that Paul primary thrust in that verse you quote is only about justification rather than the interplay of faith, works of the law, in regards to that justification.

I never gave that outline to "prove" any such thing and you know it! The outline was in response to your charge that proper exegesis should begin with a general workng framework of the book and then its development.

You accused me that I had no such working knowledge of the framework of Romans and specifically of the immediate context surrounding Romans 4:6-8.

Now, how could one respond to such a charge and demonstrate they do have a general working knowledge of the general framework of Romans? Would not the reasonable response be to provide at least a basic mechanical outline demonstrating a general understanding of the basic framework in view of such a charge? You own outline made no substantive disagreement with the mechanical outline I provided.

It appears you want me to concede I am wrong about the general contextual framework of Romans, wrong about the general framework of Romans 3:24-5:2 and wrong about the general framework of Romans 4 and therefore to concede that I know nothing about Romans 4:6-8. In essence you want me to concede I am wrong even before we enter into any exegesis of the words, grammar or syntax of Romans 4:6-8.

So I guess if I just concede, although you have provided absolutely no exegetical based evidence that I am wrong, then you have what you want?

Pleeeease lets drop this absolute nonsense and start the exegesis of Romans 4:6-8 and work out from that text using its grammar, syntax and terms to show the proper relationship with its surrounding context.

 

[Bob Hope]

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

1. "even as" - Greek "kathaper" is an adverb used 13 times in the New Testament and is translated in the KJV as 7, even as 5, as well as 1; 13 and shows connection between something previously said before with something that follows.

The adverb "Kathaper" joins together verse 5 to verses 6-8 or the use of David to further illustrate and reinforce his point made in verse 5. The immediate statement that "kathaper" connects verse 5 with in verse 6 is "God imputeth righteousness without works" thus carrying the theme of imputed righteousness from verses, 3 and 5 into verse 6 in the illustration of David and Psalm 32. Absolute proof that it is this theme being carried over to be illustrated and reinforced by David is the fact that verse 6 contains the reason for using David while only verses 7-8 contain the actual words of David "Saying". Thus verse 6 gives Paul's purpose for using David, whereas verses 7-8 give the actual words of David. The purpose stated proves that "katheper" connects the idea of imputed righteousness in verse 5 to David's words in verses 7-8 as that is precisely what is stated by Paul in verse 6.

Imputed righteousness and remission of sins are essential and inherent aspects of any Biblical concept of justification as justification "before God" (Rom. 4:1) is impossible without dealing with the issue of sin that separates man from God.

Sin is explained by Scripture to be INCLUSIVE of both commission and omission. The active obedience of Christ as revealed in his life as the lamb without spot and blemish deals with omission while commission must be satisfied by the passive obedience of Christ which provides the basis for remission of sins. Justification is empty and meaningless unless it encompasses both aspects of sin. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of God revealed in the personal active obedient life of Christ that is imputed by faith and thus "justified by faith."

Psalm 32 demonstrates that the child of God is not without PERSONAL sin and thus the necessity for imputation as David neither could provide either the active obedience to satisfy the Law of God to be justified and neither the passive obedience to satisfy the Law of God to obtain remission of sins. Thus both are obtained "without works" (v. 6) and "by faith" in the Person and works of Jesus Christ as Christ finished/satisfied both by his active and passive obedience to God's law, thus fulfilling it and becoming "the end of the law" to all who believe in him.

Works are a key part of salvation. Without obedience you have no faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I never gave that outline to "prove" any such thing and you know it!

As a matter of fact yes you do.

So again, the pirmary subject is not faith but justification.

1. It is introduced at the beginning as the primary topic - Rom. 3:24
2. It is introduced again at the beginning of chapter four - Rom. 4:1
3. It is the conclusion - Rom. 4:25-5:1

The primary thrust of this part of Romans chapter 4 in the larger discourse it that it is faith by which one is justified. Justification is in general spoken of but in particulars it is Faith which is the primary focus of obtaining justification in this part of the discourse. A discourse dealing with the problematic issue of Jews boasting of their circumcision as if by virtue of that act they are owed justification. So in outline an the topic of justification can be reached in these passages which are pointed to but the thrust that Paul is making is the requirement of having faith first rather than by works of the law by using the examples of Abraham and David.

The outline was in response to your charge that proper exegesis should begin with a general workng framework of the book and then its development.

Absolutely it should be considered in context. The outline only shows where topicly things can be found.

You accused me that I had no such working knowledge of the framework of Romans and specifically of the immediate context surrounding Romans 4:6-8.

No that is incorrect. I accussed you of taking that verse out of the context and focusing soley on that verse apart from its greater context of Paul's discourse. I did not comment on your working knowledge of anything.

Now, how could one respond to such a charge and demonstrate they do have a general working knowledge

Since that wasn't the charge you are responding to the wrong thing.

It appears you want me to concede I am wrong about the general contextual framework of Romans, wrong about the general framework of Romans 3:24-5:2

Not at all. Generally, I don't find issue that those topics are referrenced in those locations. What do want is to show that unlike your initial assertion that Romans 4:6-8 refutes sacramentalism or is in someway opposed to how James 2 is expressed, that there is indeed a reason why Romans 4 doesn't say faith alone but in primacy. What I want you to concede is that the main point of vs. 6-8 is to support what Paul says in vs.4-5 in regards to faith and not the works of the law without faith is that thing that Justifies.

 

[The Biblicist]

I never gave that outline to "prove" any such thing and you know it! The outline was in response to your charge that proper exegesis should begin with a general workng framework of the book and then its development.

You accused me that I had no such working knowledge of the framework of Romans and specifically of the immediate context surrounding Romans 4:6-8.

Now, how could one respond to such a charge and demonstrate they do have a general working knowledge of the general framework of Romans? Would not the reasonable response be to provide at least a basic mechanical outline demonstrating a general understanding of the basic framework in view of such a charge? You own outline made no substantive disagreement with the mechanical outline I provided.

It appears you want me to concede I am wrong about the general contextual framework of Romans, wrong about the general framework of Romans 3:24-5:2 and wrong about the general framework of Romans 4 and therefore to concede that I know nothing about Romans 4:6-8. In essence you want me to concede I am wrong even before we enter into any exegesis of the words, grammar or syntax of Romans 4:6-8.

So I guess if I just concede, although you have provided absolutely no exegetical based evidence that I am wrong, then you have what you want?

Pleeeease lets drop this absolute nonsense and start the exegesis of Romans 4:6-8 and work out from that text using its grammar, syntax and terms to show the proper relationship with its surrounding context.

I am going to now start again on the exegesis of Romans 4:6-8. I will start with (not continue or conclude with however) what TS and I agree with.

1. "Even as" connects verse five and especially the closing line of verse five with the contents of verses 6-8. This can easily be seen by the fact that closing words of verse 5 are "counted for righteousness" which is carried over into verse 6 by these words "imputeth righteousness."

2. Verse 6 contains the explanation for Paul's use of David's word in Psalm 32 rather than quoting any of David's words in verse 6. His introductory explanation is:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

3. In his introductory explanation he drops "faith" from the introduction to David's words and draws only from verse 5 the ideas of "worketh not" and "counted for righteousness" which are both echoed as his reason for introducing David in the words "imputeth righteousness without works." No mention of faith in this introductory statement in verse 6 but rather now the emphasis is upon imputation "WITHOUT WORKS" in connection to Psalme 32.

This shows that it is not the primacy of faith over works that Paul is speaking about in verses 6-8 but rather the EXCLUSION of works altogether from justification as his use of David shows how God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT works."

This is significant and the question should be asked how does Psalm 32 and remission of sins show how God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT works. What is there about Psalm 32 and the words provided by Paul from David which would make that point, make the point that God imputes righteousnes WITHOUT WORKS.

We will demonstrate how that quotation from Psalm 32 makes that point very vividly in our next post.

 

[The Biblicist]

As a matter of fact yes you do.

It is very frustrating dealing with someone who perverts, distorts and jerks my words out of their obvious context. However, to continue to correct you would only lead to endless debate and thus divert us away from the real purpose of this OP. Thus I am dropping this particular discussion altogether as it is useless and worthless.

Please deal with the post where I once again take up the issue of this OP.