Paidion, once again I want to thank you for the light you shine upon the biblical text through your examinations of the Greek text. Every nightmare of false theology (Hell, etc.) evaporates under the pure light of God’s truth properly translated.
Thank you Geoffrey. It is always encouraging to find that my writings are being appreciated. I am amazed at how in many ways my theology is similar to that of the Orthodox Church, having never been under Orthodox influence. The Orthodox concept of hell seems to me to be correct, that it is the experience of the wicked under the same conditions that are a blessing to the children of God.
I have also been blessed by the teaching of Coptic Orthodox teacher Hany Mikhail on “Divine Justice” in a series of 12 videos, the first of which can be found in the link below. He contrasts the Orthodox view with that of Roman Catholics and Protestants:
That is a good question 
“Atonement” shouldn’t even be used in the New Testament. APOKATALLASSO is “reconcile” where two come together in peace. KATALLASO is “conciliate” where just one side is at peace. Using the word “atonement” in Romans 5:11 covers this up.
Quite a few other translations translate “katallaso” as “reconcile” rather than “atonement” but even this is wrong.
If all mankind are already reconciled to God, why does God entreat the world to be conciliated to Him?
Hey, thanks. I did say that! 
But it’s not “just a verse” as you state that we are trying to develop a dogma out of. It is a whole chapter.
Do you need a flashlight to see the sun?
It is so apparent that all Abraham did was believe God and God reckoned righteousness to him and that Paul uses that example of God reckoning us righteous who just believe Him that Christ died because of our offenses, was entombed and roused the third day that I find it amazing no one sees it but me.
Back to my questions on justification, as found in the Wiki article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology).
How does everyone address or answer these questions?
This video will help prep you, for these questions. 
or
Eusebius, Abraham not only believed, but he followed the commands of God. God told him to leave the life that he was living in Ur and go elsewhere to start a new life. Now, this took some faith, but the faith is what prompted him to do as God commanded. We may believe that God’s word is true, however, if we do not get up and do according to that word then the faith is as James says, “dead”.
But God never reckoned righteousness to Abraham for leaving Ur. He only reckoned righteousness to Abraham when he just believed God that he would be the father of many nations.
according as it is written that, A father of many nations have I appointed you - facing which, he believes it of the God Who is vivifying the dead and calling what is not as if it were -" who, being beyond expectation, believes in expectation, for him to become the father of many nations, according to that which has been declared, “Thus shall be your seed.” And, not being infirm in faith, he considers his body, already deadened (being inherently somewhere about a hundred years) and the deadening of the matrix of Sarah, yet the promise of God was not doubted in unbelief, but he was invigorated by faith, giving glory to God, being fully assured also, that, what He has promised, He is able to do also." Wherefore, also, it is reckoned to him for righteousness" (Rom 4:17-22).
Why would Paul say Abraham was accounted righteous by DOING something other than just believing God? That’s Paul’s whole point: Abraham believes God and it is reckoned to him for righteousness. Likewise, and this is Paul’s argument:
Now it was not written because of him only, that it is reckoned to him, but because of us also, to whom it is about to be reckoned, who are believing on Him Who rouses Jesus our Lord from among the dead." Who was given up because of our offenses, and was roused because of our justifying" (Rom 4:23-25).
Notice, nothing in Romans 4 about Abraham DOING anything but rather simply believing God.
Abraham was around 70 when he left Ur. He was not reckoned righteous at that time. Close to 25 or so years later he was reckoned righteous by just believing God he would be the father of many nations.
We too are reckoned righteous simply by believing God that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and was roused the third day:
Now I am making known to you, brethren, the evangel which I bring to you, which also you accepted, in which also you stand, through which also you are saved, if you are retaining what I said in bringing the evangel to you, outside and except you believe feignedly." For I give over to you among the first what also I accepted, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was entombed, and that He has been roused the third day according to the scriptures, (1Co 15:1-4).
It is so simple, the wise can’t get it. Don’t you get it?
One time event at the cross.
This is different than most evangelicals who believe justification happens at a point in time as each individual believes. I instead understand that all mankind was justified together one time at the cross. The believer is one whom then receives and trust in this good news. The unbelievers sins are forgiven, but they remain a criminal and renegade until they repent. God does not condemn them, but they remain at enmity toward God for their part until they repent. This is easily understood when you think of an example in your own life when someone is holding out the olive branch to you, but you have no interest until you are willing to admit wrongdoing.
Monergism. God alone is the actor who accomplishes justification. This the heart of the gospel of grace answers the question, how can a holy God be reconciled to sin and fallen mankind? Nothing we could offer would help our cause in the least. Instead Christ has accomplished it all on our behalf. This is also the significant change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant as explained in Hebrews.
Permanent.
Justification provides a right legal standing for sinners before God. Those who believe and trust in this good news can then effectively ‘live’ for God. That is the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:15 “He died for all, that those who LIVE should no longer live to themselves, but to him who for their sakes died and rose again.” So sanctification is the process of God transforming us into his image. However, we should note that there are places in Scripture where ‘sanctified’ is also used to describe our legal standing before God. 1 Corinthians 1:2 is an example of that. The Corinthians were hardly ‘sanctified’ in any practical sense while they permitted sexual sin in their midst. Yet ‘in Christ’ they are sanctified and 100% holy in God’s sight.
God didn’t “reckon” righteousness to Abraham at all. As I explained previously, God counted (or reckoned, if you insist) Abraham’s faith TOWARD righteousness, that is, with righteousness as the GOAL. Abraham had to work it out together with God.
(Philippians 2:12 ESV) Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Paul’s words here seem to indicate that the Philippians could work out their own salvation, if only they continued to OBEY. However, when the New Testament is take as a whole, we see that one cannot do it alone, and God won’t do it alone, but “working together with Him” it gets done.
A few verses previous to the above passage, Paul asks them to have the mind of Christ.
Paidion, the more you talk to more clear it becomes that you have rejected Biblical grace, the wholly undeserved favor of God. You are standing up for righteous living and cooperating with God is his efforts to transform us in his image. That is commendable. However, your formulation must be missing either the incredible perfection and holiness of God that can withstand NO imperfection or the utter weakness and sinfulness of man, or both. The great question answered by the gospel is how could holy God even forgive one sin and you answer may be something like, ‘well God is also loving and forgiving.’ However, that answer falls way short of the assurance that can be found in knowing God and being found safely hidden in Christ all our sins forever removed at the cross. While you emphasize the importance of ‘cooperating’ with God, the gospel promises hope that solves a much deeper problem… we have not cooperated with God, but instead crucified Him. In fact the great hope of the gospel, that holy God can withstand absolutely no sin is in fact our assurance that in glory our every perfection will be removed. God is a just God and cannot wink at sin. He cannot merely forgive sin and maintain his justice, but there must be the shedding of blood to make atonement. Don’t you see the beautiful symmetry between God’s love, holiness, and justice that is proclaimed from the cross?
This is much closer to the biblical teaching:
"The view that ‘the righteousness of God’ refers to a righteousness which God gives to, bestows upon, or recognizes in human beings came initially from Augustine, but gained its force (in terms of the development of modern theology) from Luther’s reaction against a iustitia distributiva. The term iustitia, as found in the Latin Vulgate, had indeed pulled the understanding of texts such as Rom. 1:17 in the (false) direction of a merely ‘distributive’ justice, in which God simply rewards virtue and punishes vice. Luther’s alternative, however fruitful in opening new worlds of theology to him, was in some ways equally misleading, for it directed attention away from the biblical notion of God’s covenant faithfulness and instead placed greater emphasis upon the status of the human being. In the period after Luther, Protestant theology largely returned to the notion of the distributive justice of God: because God is righteous, he must in fact reward virtue and punish sin, and this satisfaction of divine justice took place in Christ.
According to the NT, the people of God do indeed have ‘righteousness’. This is not, strictly speaking, God’s own righteousness (though cf. 2 Cor. 5:21), but that which is proper to the person in whose favour the court has found; within the covenant context, it is the right standing of a member of the people of God. ‘Righteousness’ thus comes to mean, more or less, ‘covenant membership’, with all the overtones of appropriate behaviour (e.g. Phil. 1:11). The terminology plays a central role in Paul’s debate with those who sought to keep the covenant community within the bounds of physical Judaism: they, Paul says, are ignorant of God’s righteousness (i.e. of what God is righteously accomplishing, of how he is fulfilling his covenant) and are seeking to establish a righteousness of their own (i.e. a covenant membership for Jews alone), whereas in God’s plan Christ offers covenant membership to all who believe the gospel (Rom. 10:3-4). (See further Paul.)
The central biblical discussions of righteousness thus principally concern membership in the covenant and the behaviour appropriate to that membership. Since, however, these passages depend on a theology in which God is creator and judge of all the earth, and in which God’s people are to reflect God’s own character, it is not illegitimate to extrapolate from them to the ‘justice’ which God desires, and designs, for his world. The church is to be not only an example of God’s intended new humanity, but the means by which the eventual plan, including the establishment of world-wide justice, is to be put into effect. Lack of emphasis here in older theological writing, due sometimes to individualism and sometimes to a dualistic split between church and world, has led to a reaction (e.g. in some liberation theology) in which ‘justice’ as an abstract virtue has been elevated in an unbiblical manner (e.g. at the expense of mercy). This should not prevent a balanced orthodox view of world-wide justice from regaining, and retaining, its place in the church’s teaching and practice."
So you are saying Paul lied.
God reckoned Abraham righteous because he believed God that he would be the father of many nations.
Rom 4:3 τι [what] γαρ [for] η [the] γραφη [scripture] λεγει [is saying] επιστευσεν [believes] δε [yet] αβρααμ [Abraham] τω [to the] θεω [God] και [and] ελογισθη [it is accounted] αυτω [to him] εις [into] δικαιοσυνην [righteousness]
Not “toward” Paidion" but “into” or “for” righteousness.
Paul used Abraham as an example of believers of the nations who just believe God and in so doing, God reckons us righteous. We are righteous who believe Paidion, whether you like it or not. God sees us as righteous. We are complete in Christ. We are in Christ. Christ is righteous. Therefore we are righteous. We didn’t have to work for our righteousness. And the beauty of it is that God gave us the faith to believe Him that Christ died for our sins. There is no boasting allowed.
Far from the truth Paidion. Paul is not telling the Philippians that they have to work to save themselves! Rather, the Philippians are exhorted to make the salvation they already have effective in their daily life and action.
The very fact that you think what Christ did was not enough to save you shows you don’t get it. And if believers have to work to save themselves, how is God going to save all mankind in the end? Is He going to make them save themselves in some sort of Dantean Hell? 
Save yourselves by shoveling more coal!
Sorry but believers of the nations do not covenant with God to become righteous. A covenant is a binding agreement that if one side of the agreement does such and such, the other side is indebted to do such and such. Believers of the nations never entered into a covenant with God to do anything and thus indebt God to bless them.
And you go to Augustine and others who were not inspired. Why not stick with Paul? Because if you do, your whole shabby theology goes down the toilet where it belongs.
After hearing Jeff I have to say I’m going back to what I used to believe. I think it’s both. Our faith in Christ both imputes and infuses righteousness. Of course the infusion doesn’t make us perfect but there’s a change. There’s a washing in the blood. Moreover, I’m reminded of that scripture:
That sounds like imputation to me.
Eusebius - Is it your zeal for God and love for neighbor that leads to invective against others? What do you hope to accomplish by this - thoughtfulness, harmony, what?
NT Wright knows Romans better than anyone alive, right now. Learn something, read him AND the scriptures. Or are you so wise you need nothing else? You’ve settled all problems? You alone have the answers?
Maybe you do?0
Down the toilet, indeed. Was that an inspired utterance?? 
Actually, folks will have different theological perspectives. But from the standpoint of statistics, something that stands by itself, is a statistical outlier. The advantage of following established theological positions, is that you have the best brains around - to tap into. If you create your own theological position, then you have to handle any objections, that come your way - entirely on your own.
I do admire one thing about Jeff. He does give answers to my questions, from his theological perspective. I do admire that quality in him (not that I agree with him, necessarily).
I was talking about invective, Randy, not theological positions. I get your point on that and it’s one I’ve made myself. Or thought I did. I’m old and probably forgot.
Eusebius is hardly inspired, but only the Scriptures. Yet the Scriptures themselves ought to give us all pause for Paul the Apostle was willing to turn to name calling over this hot topic. So we each best get a good grip on our understanding for there is something very valuable worth defending in the true gospel. Though please note that Paul never took up arms, which is hard to do in an online forum anyway 
Philippians 3:1-4
I get it now, Dave. As a Google search shows, “insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.”
Oh, Dear Oh, my . This might have a detrimental effect, on Holy Fools and P-Zombies, reading this thread.