Featured Romans 5:1

NASB
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

The phrase for study in this verse is "justified by faith." Now the Greek word translated "justified" is also translated by some versions as "declared righteous." And the word certainly has both meanings within its semantic range. However if God is causing the righteousness, the word should be translated as made righteous or justified, rather than "declared righteous." A perusal of the places where "declared righteous" is intended are the verses where individuals declare themselves righteous. See Luke 7:29, 10:29 and 16:15.

The "by" in our phrase translates the Greek preposition "ek" which means (positionally) out of, and metaphorically based upon. Thus we are justified based on faith. Now is that any faith or only faith in Christ as credited by God? As credited by God. See Romans 4:23-25.

 

If God does not declare a saved person righteous, but makes them righteous by the washing of regeneration, then to claim He renders a person righteous by declaration is a lie.

 

Not sure of your basis for this assertion. The Greek word, in this grammatical form (Verb - Present Active Indicative First Person Plural) appears about 44 times in the NT and can always be translated as "we have" or "have we" (when part of a question) or in the negative (we have not or have not we).

 

Yet another false charge from the dean of false chargers. JesusFan consistently posts outrageous falsehoods to divert discussion of actual bible study. Why this behavior is systemically tolerated is food for thought.

 

Why attribute to me obviously false doctrine? The issue is not the content of Abraham's faith, but whether God chooses to credit his or other person's faith as righteousness.

And just how does God make a person righteous? By the washing of regeneration! The washing of regeneration occurs when an individual is placed spiritually into Christ? Recall "made alive together with Christ?

 

Here is a link that discusses the likelihood that "we have" is correct and "let us be at" is error.

Textual Problem Study: Romans 5:1

 

Yet another Calvinist trying to change the subject and derail the thread. They make up false charges non-stop.

 

Here is the NET footnote mentioned in the link in post #18:

2tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א1 B2 F G P Ψ 0220vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS4 appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א1 might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220vid, probably א1 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA27 as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.