"Righteousness of God" in Romans...

[Sean Jacob Dwyer]

 

[KMK]

Most people seem to suggest that the "righteousness of God" is righteousness that God imputes to people who believe in Jesus. I find this a bit of a stretch. Thoughts?

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying that it is a stretch to see Paul's use of the phrase 'righteousness of God' as referring to that justifying righteousness which is imputed to believers by means of faith?

 

[MW]

Thoughts?

Because Romans is generally and usually speaking about righteousness as something that is found either in the law or in the gospel, it is obviously not directly referring to God's righteous character, but to the state of man before God. Clearly it is God's righteous character which establishes the need for righteousness but it is not itself the direct referent in the context. Likewise, God manifested His righteousness in performing His promises, and manifests His righteousness in remaining faithful to the demands of the covenant, but this cannot be the reference point of righteousness in the majority of times it is used in Romans because usually righteousness is connected with works or faith in the teaching of the Epistle, and works or faith are exercised by men. When the apostle speaks of being accounted righteous, and asserts this is on the basis of the saving work of Christ alone, and received by faith alone, the context demands "righteousness" to be understood as that which God gives in the grace of justification -- the two terms righteousness and justification being closely related in the Greek.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Another way of substantiating Rev. Winzer's point (post #3) is a quick referral to the early structure of the epistle.

Wrath and Righteousness are together viewed as antithetical (ala law and gospel) or contrasting bestowments from God, variation which constitutes the essential division of humankind. Rom.1:18 begins the discussion of the "bad news" leading up to the more glorious solution to it. In the first place, "For wrath of [or from] God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." This is all law-oriented, holy divine retribution and hostility toward the rebellious character of men. And then in 3:21f, "But now apart from the law righteousness of [or from] God is manifested... through faith in Jesus Christ." The two cases of revelation set up both presentations, bad news vs. good news (and see 1:19 for use of the exact linguistic parallel, "manifested," Gk. φανερόω). In either case--Wrath or Righteousness--there is no disharmony or essential clash within the one God who expresses both; but in the objects or recipients a different experience of the singular character of God.

Another way to approach the issue is to ask whether "the wrath of God" is, by way of deliberate parallel expression in these structural instances, equally (to righteousness) and mainly an expression of God's character, as in the NPP proposal. Such a view sets up unwarranted tension between Wrath and Righteousness (as it is being defined). In fact, Wrath is just as much a demonstration of God's "covenant faithfulness," his reliability and the trustworthiness of his word, as is Righteousness. The former is essentially tied to the Covenant of Works, the latter to the Covenant of Grace. Again, what is needed is a holy (and whole) immutable divine character, which variable men encounter according to their natural (innate or renewed) dispositions.

Furthermore, if a certain premium is placed on Righteousness within the divine character (as distinguished from the order of its revelation toward the blessed), not only is Wrath completely eclipsed, it becomes incomprehensible to us, and opens the door to Universalism. Wrath becomes generally subordinated to this understanding of Righteousness, except in a formal and descriptive sense. What is the point of God's remaining judgment on the ungodly? We (the redeemed) have no idea, because our entire understanding of God is Benevolence. Wrath becomes "OT stuff," and we end up in a neo-Marcionism.

 

[Sean Jacob Dwyer]

Pastor Klein, yes. Rev. Windzer, thank you. Rev. Buchanan, thank you.

Does the "Law and the Prophets bear witness" to an imputed righteousness of Christ?

I also tend to believe the subjective genitive approach (Christ's Faithfulness and throughout) to translation is better suited for Romans 3 (See NETB).

I am not denying the necessity of Christ's active obedience. I even see this as instrumental in the establishment of God's righteousness/covenant faithfulness. Nor am I denying the necessity of believing in Jesus in order to be justified before God. But I am having a real hard time seeing anything about an alien righteousness Christians receive from God upon putting their faith in Jesus...I think it is legitimate to say that once a person believes in Jesus they are eternally justified before God because of their union with Christ and therefore are benefactors of His righteousness though.

Rev. Windzer, the righteousness of God is found in both the Old and New Testaments (This is how I am understanding "the Law and the Prophets") (The OT).

Rev. Buchanan, I will consider this wrath vs. righteousness linguistic theory. But I also do not see a problem. The wrath of God does not abide on those who believe in Jesus. But they certainly still know their God is a consuming fire (or should). That is my knee-jerk solution.

For whatever reason it is a big difference to me to say that "I have been credited with a righteous standing before God on the basis of my union with Christ through believing (Because He was actively obedient and now is my righteousness)" than it is to say, "I have been imputed with the righteousness of Christ (His Active Obedience is now somehow my own gift)." The latter almost seems like a righteousness of my own (though on the basis of faith). Whereas the former seems to accord more with many Scriptures (in Christ). One way or another, does this even matter? Either way, Christ had to obey, and believers benefit from it. But where I do think it matters is that in Romans 3 Paul seems to be showing us how GOD is righteous in view of the worlds sinfulness (Romans 3:25-26).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Does the "Law and the Prophets bear witness" to an imputed righteousness of Christ?

Sure they do. Jer.23:6, "In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'" It is a truth stated with tremendous force by Jeremiah, twice (also 33:16), in the midst of a people utterly sunk under the weight of their sins, rejected because of their own unrighteousness. Compared with the clear demand of the law, Dt.6:25, "And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us," the needed personal righteousness must to be found. The OT clearly shows that sinners need the Lord to BE their righteousness; HOW that will be accomplished is revealed in the NT through Christ. In the unredeemed condition, we have our sin counted against us, we need to have it NOT so counted, and something else counted in its place. Ps.32:2, "Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit."

Paul teaches consistently on this subject. Php.3:9, "and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Here Paul brings together not only the blessedness of union-with-Christ, but also the entailment of what he (the believer) possesses by virtue of the connection. The righteousness I have is not of my own production, but is mine through faith in Christ. Attempts to turn the genitive here into a subjective results in eliminating any description of how such blessedness becomes mine, the very thing Paul seems intent on explaining through the contrast of working and believing. Furthermore, if "pistis" at the end of the sentence were also rendered "faithfulness" (i.e. doing of some kind) and treated as the believer's (in contrast to the former, treated as Christ's), one has now made Paul utterly incoherent: "not-my-righteousness-by-law-keeping" which nevertheless comes from God (ek theo) to me on the basis of my faithfulness?

There never is a question as to whether Christ is faithful (obedient, trustworthy, etc.) or not. If he weren't, there wouldn't be any righteousness to share with us. There would be nothing for him to BE for us. If one turns the whole Php.3:9 into a description of the contrast between MY faithless work, and Christ's faithful work, you are still left with this concrete expression: "τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην," the from-God-righteousness which ἔχων ἐμὴν, I am possessing. How so? What effects the union? When/where/how does Paul describe it? Was there no better expression for Paul to use to describe Christ's worthiness (in law-keeping) than the very same word (pistis) he consistently juxtaposes against works? It seems to me that the more one looks for faith-expressions in Paul that could be converted into work-expressions, the less there is left for affirming faith-alone, and the less clear the apostle is made out to be as a communicator.

What I'm saying is: you can affirm all day long that you uphold key doctrines like Christ's active obedience and the need to have faith, which you nevertheless say you cannot see in Paul's letter to the Romans. All right, fine--establish the doctrines from elsewhere on better grounds. Is Christ's righteousness imputed to believers? Or is that whole idea merely implicit in the two words, "en Christo"? Is it ever fleshed out anywhere, anywhere expressed in fuller terms? How would you answer someone who objects to the notion of imputation, who would deny that "in Christ" contains the idea? Respecting unrighteousness, was the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed to the whole human race? What happens to the doctrine of Original Sin without imputation-through-solidarity? Is it reduced to an inherited propensity?


Lastly, the wrath/righteousness construction isn't "linguistic theory." It's literary/rhetorical analysis. It's a question of being able to read (or hear) a text, and follow authorial/speaker intent. In the first ch. Paul gives a greeting, vv1-7, and a cursory explanation for writing, vv8-15, by way of introducing himself; followed by a thematic declaration on the subject of the gospel, vv16-17. He then sets up his gospel-presentation with the requisite predicament-presentation. No one needs salvation if he isn't in trouble, or more pertinently, doesn't know that he is. Now, if that is the basic form of the first three chapters (extended through ch.11; conceivably through 15:13), one should look for verbal cues (or listen, since this is a work of rhetoric) in order to recognize the internal logic of the text.

If there's something wrong with the analysis, then it should be overturned with something comparable or superior. What you wrote above ("knee-jerk," your term) is just that--thoughtless reactionary resistance. Your response ignores my focus on Paul's "revelatory" terms, tied to both concepts (wrath/righteousness) presented in parallel. What theory or analysis undergirds the claim that we should NOT take his language in the way I (and the bulk of the Reformed tradition) interpret it? The analysis is asking something of the reader. It's asking him to bring fewer a prioris to the text--such as what "righteousness of God" must mean--and let Paul's use narrow his contextual meaning from the possibilities of a wider semantic domain.

This quote:

The latter [IAO] almost seems like a righteousness of my own (though on the basis of faith).

which you present as an abhorrent statement, very nearly contradicts Php.3:9. Paul seems positively ecstatic there to have on the basis of faith a righteousness he can call his own, clearly one that did not come from his own legal obedience.

Rom.3:25-26 is not testifying to God's being in-the-right, over against humans being in-the wrong. Christ, the sacrifice, is the great "declaration" of this fact? Christ in dying propitiatorily proves God is just, and men are sinners? That is a fact already well known to man since the Garden. It is already proven. It will be finally acknowledged by everyone in Hell. The divine righteousness being witnessed to in the death of Christ is God's satisfaction in the punishment of sin, now in the Person of a substitute. The last words of v26 speak to both what WAS clear to all, as well as what NOW IS clear to the believer--how God can be BOTH just (previously known) AND how he can be the justifier (newly revealed) of the ungodly, Rom.4:5. His "way of salvation" is not in any way "unjust." It's GOD's way, and therefore righteous--both by definition, as well as by demonstration. God's righteousness in this text is his righteous-way of dealing with sin (i.e. it doesn't have to be merely wrath).



We aren't making theological advance by trying to make extra room in our rich inheritance of Reformation thought for the principle of Union (when was it ever missing?), by means of carving into space occupied--deservedly so--by the principles of Justification, Imputation, and Faith. I'm not saying all recent talk of Union is impoverishing, rather than enriching. But a considerable amount of it is frankly careless of the gains of previous generations, profoundly ignorant of what the Reformed affirm as vital to the faith, why so, and on what basis.

 

[Sean Jacob Dwyer]

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan,

Thank you for your time and effort (I am really working through this issue). I was aware of the Jeremiah passage. Also, I consider the NETB the best translation of Philippians 3 on the basis on the Greek Text (Thus, the last "pistis" would refer to Christ's faithfulness as well). Also, "on the basis of faith" if referring to a persons faith in Christ seems abhorrent to me ("through" is much different than "on the basis of"). That basically says God justifies people because they believe in Him (But justification is a grace as well Rom. 3:24). Through faith being "credited with righteousness" on the basis of Christ's righteousness seems different to me (and more biblical) than "being given Christ's righteousness" (Which is how I am understanding "imputed"). Does it to you? Am I just having a semantical issue here? Because as I read your post, I am saying "Amen" at most points. Also, my apology if I said or seemed to say I was denying seeing Christ's active obedience or the need for faith in Romans (That is certainly not the case,-- and I just reviewed my previous post and it does not seem like I said that). Regarding the issue between wrath and righteousness, I do see the parallel. My apology for calling it a linguistic theory. I was just trying to say I would look at that. You are clearly more knowledgeable about these matters. I am asking genuine questions, not looking to stir the pot. If you are not fed up with me, I would appreciate more.

 

[MW]

Rev. Windzer, the righteousness of God is found in both the Old and New Testaments (This is how I am understanding "the Law and the Prophets") (The OT).

The apostle teaches the righteousness of the gospel in contrast to the righteousness of the law was witnessed by the law and the prophets. This means we must distinguish the use of the term "law." The phrase "law and prophets" uses the term "law" as providing testimony. The righteousness revealed in the gospel is witnessed by the law and prophets. When the term "law" is used in contrast to "gospel," the revelation is not bare testimony but is conceived as administering righteous judgment. In the law it is the "doer" who is regarded as righteous. In the gospel it is the "believer" who is regarded as righteous. As noted, the fact that works and/or faith are immediately connected to the verdict of righteousness, and that works and/or faith are the activity of men, shows that "righteousness" cannot be an attribute of God per se, but must be seen as a relation in which men stand before God.

 

[arapahoepark]

Here's this from Ridderbos

Unfortunately, there is a profound difference of opinion among the interpreters of Paul as to the significance of this combination, a difference that has continued up to the present time. For by this righteousness of God some understand an attribute or an activity of God and take the words, that the righteousness of God is now (or has been) revealed, in this way, that God has now revealed himself as the Righteous One, or in his (saving) righteousness. Others see in the righteousness of God the denotation of that which man must have in order to be able to stand in the divine judgment. The revelation of the righteousness of God then intends to say that the time of salvation that has dawned with Christ and the gospel for man brings along with it righteousness, understood in this sense, before God (of from God). We consider it established that the words in Romans 1:17 and 3:21 are intended in this latter sense; that “righteousness” here is therefore not a divine but a human quality and that the righteousness “of God” further defines that quality as righteousness that can stand before God (cf. Rom. 2:13; 3:20), which is valid in his judgment, the righteousness that God attributes to man as opposed to his own righteousness (Rom. 10:3), as it is also called in Philippians 3:9: “not having my righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God, upon the foundation of faith.” (Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 163)

“It is apparent from this explanation that in the concept “righteousness of God” we have to do with a forensic category and indeed in the eschatological sense of the word: it is a matter of what man requires in order go free in the divine judgment…[This] is not only a matter of the great future which is still to be awaited, but as has been revealed with the advent of Christ and in the gospel; as a present reality and as a redemptive gift of God it has been given, attributed, communicated in the gospel to everyone who believes…Whereas for Judaism it was an incontrovertible matter that this righteousness, as the crucial, decisive factor in the judicial declaration of God, was not to be spoken of other than in a future-eschatological sense, Paul proclaims this righteousness as a present reality already realized in Christ.” (p. 164)

“That the expression ‘the righteousness of God’ is used here (in 3:21ff.) in a twofold sense (first, in vv. 21, 22, as a forensic quality conferred on man by God, which makes him go free; then, in vv. 25, 26, as the vindicatory righteousness of God) cannot obscure the unmistakable meaning of this passage…In Christ’s death God has sat in judgment, has judged sin, and in this way he has caused his eschatological judgment to be revealed in the present time. But for those who are in Christ, he has therefore become righteousness, and the content of the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ can be defined as the revelation of the righteousness of God for everyone who believes.” (pp. 167-68)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan,

Thank you for your time and effort (I am really working through this issue). I was aware of the Jeremiah passage. Also, I consider the NETB the best translation of Philippians 3 on the basis on the Greek Text (Thus, the last "pistis" would refer to Christ's faithfulness as well). Also, "on the basis of faith" if referring to a persons faith in Christ seems abhorrent to me ("through" is much different than "on the basis of"). That basically says God justifies people because they believe in Him (But justification is a grace as well Rom. 3:24). Through faith being "credited with righteousness" on the basis of Christ's righteousness seems different to me (and more biblical) than "being given Christ's righteousness" (Which is how I am understanding "imputed"). Does it to you? Am I just having a semantical issue here? Because as I read your post, I am saying "Amen" at most points. Also, my apology if I said or seemed to say I was denying seeing Christ's active obedience or the need for faith in Romans (That is certainly not the case,-- and I just reviewed my previous post and it does not seem like I said that). Regarding the issue between wrath and righteousness, I do see the parallel. My apology for calling it a linguistic theory. I was just trying to say I would look at that. You are clearly more knowledgeable about these matters. I am asking genuine questions, not looking to stir the pot. If you are not fed up with me, I would appreciate more.

Sean,
A storm of verbiage doesn't always convey as much information as relentlessness, especially if it is not interspersed with charity. Rev. Winzer writes weighty posts in terser style. Either way can seem chilly and distant, especially on the charmless internet. It is not so toward anyone sincerely desiring input.

It's your right to use and prefer the NET. I sometimes refer to it as a supplemental translation, because a variety of renderings of a single text can be of help in understanding. Through repeated use, one is also able at times to detect a particular bias. For example, the NET continues the older RSV's aversion to rendering ἱλαστήριον and cognates according to the idea of "propitiation," that is the assuaging of wrath. Another peculiarity is its obvious preference for a subjective genitive understanding of the phrase πίστεως Χριστοῦ (and all similar and related expressions). The result is an oddly "fundamentalist" kind of treatment of particular phraseology in the biblical writers. I find such translation less faithful, inasmuch as it disallows ordinary linguistic flexibility in the writer/speaker and forces upon them a more technical style. This brings back the fundamental question: What is the main concern of the gospel? Does that fixed and general concern overarch and undergird the particular linguistic expressions of the apostles?

In the NET reading, we are deprived of the expression (in English) of a given person's "faith of [i.e. pertaining to, engaged with, subsumed under, encompassing, etc.] Christ." As if the only suitable way to describe an individual's interest in Christ is by means of prepositions like "en" and "eis," or the dative and accusative case. And why does the newer approach put such stock in (or divide Paul's faith-emphasis between the believer's and) Christ's faith or faithfulness? Does this not have the effect of making either a "believer" out of Christ, or "doers" out of us, on the principle of consistency of terms? Am I justified by "faith" or by "faithfulness," and whose? What is Paul doing pitting faith(fulness) and works against one another, if in some sense they amount to the same thing? Or are they correct who understand Paul only to be pitting moral devotion (Christian identity) to legal devotion (ethno-Judaic boundaries)?

"Epi" is Paul's choice in Php.3:9. "Through" is an acceptable rendering, so long as the essential implication of that word does not exclude "basis." Even the NET brings out the "basis" nuance, though they make Christ's obedience the predicate, rather than a contrast of means (work or faith) pertaining to the sinner (note also the translator's need to insert "Christ" as a subject for prepositional object "pistis"; it cannot be left to stand alone, in clear contrast to personal law-keeping). Paul uses "dia" elsewhere, but the strength of that preposition is its instrumental or "via" (avenue) implication. So, while I understand why your reliance on the NET essentially neuters that text, I also recognize the a prioris that make that translation necessary. Allegedly, the contrasting foundation, as it pertains specifically to an individual, a priori cannot possibly be Paul's intent to state--because it is abhorrent; so the v must have a different sense. Paul "wouldn't" speak thus.

I think this approach misses the apostle's intent (beginning all the way back at v4). I think what is abhorrent--not necessarily to you, but to the ethos behind the NET--is the idea that what the older (Reformational) understanding of Paul had was this asymmetrical contrast in foundation. The older (truer) understanding of "what St.Paul really said" was that, looked at from the human perspective, there was one basis of works versus another no-basis of anything! Just "faith," which was nothing at all (in the individual). It is the Protestant intent to uphold the genius of the Pauline expression of that strange contrast. It doesn't matter when or how the emphasis is placed on the work-foundation--whether before salvation in Christ is personally apprehended, or even after (see Galatians). ANY reliance on works is a "fall from grace."

It is essential to the modern project to undo that radical contrast, through the introduction of a rebuilt internal foundation, the foundation of "faithfulness." It is ESSENTIAL to the Reformed understanding (all the way back to the 16th century) to have a "faithful" (i.e. obedient) Christ--one whose righteousness is always in him, and outside of us!--whose benefits belong to us through union. It is WHY we have always spoken of Christ's righteousness as OURS, just as a wife speaks of that which properly pertains to the husband as HERS due to their marriage union. I know that modern Protestants, even some Reformed, are looking for a way to incorporate the "new learning" into their theology, but the fact is that they are working the seeds of their own undoing by it. They are accepting the arguments of the NPP types as legitimate criticisms of their own position (really directed against modernists/liberals, who stole the heritage and then corrupted it).

But these neo-moderns haven't recovered the older, better statement of the truth. They are doing little different from what Barth attempted a hundred years ago, only he at least admitted he was indebted in some way to the Reformers. The hostility of NTWright to the whole notion of imputation is symptomatic. He believes the Roman claim that imputation creates a "legal fiction." Ultimately, a new interpretation of the Scriptural term "faith of Christ" as meaning "Christ's faithfulness," and other restatements, must inevitably lead to the reinterpretation of all "faith-statements" in the NT as expressive of the life-of-faith, or faithfulness (obedience) of the Christian. And this is precisely the direction NTWright takes his revision. Justification, he says, is more about ecclesiology than soteriology. And in the end, it is God's declaration as "right" those who are found to "be right," because of their clear identification.

Right up front they've done it, and it is simply naive of the Reformed (and others) to believe they can buy-in to only a part of that program. In the end, the goal appears to be a new synthesis, a new theology broad enough to allow both Rome and Protestantism to engage with it at a common hub. It might even be broad enough to allow those of the modern Jewish persuasion to plug in, and that without departing from their attachment to the ancient shadows, so long as they profess some attachment to Jesus as their hoped-for Christ (if indeed they must).


To another one of your statements/questions: it isn't entirely clear to me what your interpretation of "faith credited with righteousness" means, especially as you've juxtaposed it with "credited [given] Christ's righteousness." You leave the "basis" (X-R) outside self, while seeming to internalize some "grace" God accepts in you in lieu of personal lack, even if that quality happens to be gift (not of yourself). Our Confession opposes this construction, not respecting the external basis (that remains wholly in Christ), but respecting the notion that either the grace of faith, or its exercise, or any other saving benefit forms any substantive basis for our acceptance/justification with God. I "get" Christ's righteousness because I "get" him to whom it belongs. Or rather, he lays hold on me; and my laying hold of him follows through the (non-meritorious) instrumentality of faith.

Now God views me (as it were) through the aperture of the righteous Son. The Savior's righteousness is reckoned mine. It is not by works of righteousness which I have done, but according to his mercy (Tit.3:5). But if I ask "on what basis?" and the answer is given from the standpoint of the redeemed creature; then the basis of works is rejected, leaving "faith," which is for all intents and purposes "nothing at all." Faith is opposed to works.

This leads me to a further critique. Taking your words at face value (again, phrasing you don't like): "God justifies people because they believe in Him," again I have to wonder what meaning you are drawing from those terms, that would make it objectionable to a Protestant. Do you think that statement claims for faith/belief some "value," or that this faith (the faculty or the exercise) is a literal cause triggering a response in God? Because that is not what the Reformed confess, and have never confessed (even if it were possible to find someone who has said something like it). Faith is purely receptive, and according to this means-sense is accurately described as a cause insofar as it describes our access to Christ and his righteousness. Paul interprets Gen.15:6 (Rom.4:3,9,22; Gal.3:6) to say exactly this thing: God made a promise to Abraham, and he believed God; and it [trusting not in himself but the God who promised] was reckoned him for [eis] righteousness. Faith could neither be, nor accomplish anything, were it not God who made use of it in believers. But because he does, it is correct to say God justifies people for no other reason than that they believe him.



Anyway, I hope these observations prove useful to you. Please read with caution and discernment. It is a good idea to drink deeply from wells tried and true, which have for so long supplied the best water to the thirsty. First gain a thorough acquaintance with the Reformed tradition, possession of which will enhance your subsequent interaction with alternatives.

 

[Sean Jacob Dwyer]

Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan,

That was a pleasurable read, thank you. So, in Romans 4, you are saying that Abrahams faith was credited to him as [eis, unto, for] righteousness, is NOT saying that Abrahams faith CAUSED God to receive him (I hope not)? That is precisely my issue with the wording "on the basis" and so on. So basically you are saying it is merely from the human perspective. So, faith is the BASIS, but only in reference to works (and from the human point of view). If I take this approach to Philippians 3 then I can understand it your way (basically Paul is just expressing things from the horizontal plane--"I stand by faith not works" (Whereas from the vertical perspective it would be, "I am what I am by the GRACE of God"). I have debated with some Arminians over this very issue (Romans 4). A natural reading of the text would seem to support their position (But not tota Scriptura). Really THIS was my issue with Philippians 3 in the first place (not NPP or Tom Wright). It seemed like I was left with arminianism or "Christ's faithfulness" as the proper reading. I put way more stock in the Reformers than I do anybody today. But at the end of the day it has to be the Scriptures. I have all kinds of "whacky beliefs" (Sabbath, head coverings, abstaining from sex during menstration etc.) that I have gathered from the Text and get a mouthful over. If I just swallowed down what I hear today, this would not be the case. Either way, brother, it has been a pleasure. Thank you.