Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
Post Reply
jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by jpat1975 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:50 pm

Steve,

For years, I looked up to this guy "<My Friend "D">" as a pastor and teacher, and had asked him from time to time about Romans. He avoided the subject a lot, but opened up later. See the discussion below. The context of this discussion was I had attempted to do a summary of the entire book in a way I was trying to give an overview that carried as little bias as I could muster. He didn't see much value in such. I'll follow-up with my latest revised copied of that study. My question has more to do with getting you opinion on any good points he's raising here VS where he might be giving up too easily (or on the wrong track) - in particular what he details in his "Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 AM" response:
Our earlier conversations on an earlier draft which you had a most negative (but still constructive) reaction to:

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:56 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:

I'm really, sorry, I don't really agree with you about some of these points, as I've explained before. I don't want to argue about it, but I am not interested in writing on Romans right now. Everybody already has unshakable opinions about it and WAY too much preaching is done on this book in modern times, to the exclusion of other large sections of Scripture.

-------------

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:

That's ok. I was trying to make this as general but useful as possible, but not getting into specifics. It's clear I wasn't successful in this, but if you wanted to let me know where I might have lost you in this latest one I sent today, I'd be grateful. I'm trying to write something that isn't too specific, and would not be objectionable for most folks on any side of the debate.

-------------

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:13 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:

I don't see the point in that, sorry. I don't think one can say anything useful about Romans without triggering disagreement. Being too vague makes it pointless. Being specific instantly triggers disagreement. I think Romans leaves virtually no room for common ground - I don't believe the book has enough material to talk about that all Christians would agree upon, except for the most sweeping of generalizations, which are not very useful to write, as it would be overly obvious to everyone.

-------------

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:

So you don't think it's possible to present both sides of a debate while rising above biases? A believes such-and such, but B believes this-and-that, etc. An overview, like that, would be useful in just giving the novice a starting point on the long journey, before they go wading into the deeper debates. Some folks just want to know what's going on in general in simple terms, with as least bias as possible. I know I would have found this useful.

[...]

-------------

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:48 AM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:

I think there are some study Bibles out there that try to mention alternate interpretations of the controversial passages [...]

One time I wrote something explaining alternate views of the atonement (ransom/redemption/liberation, forgiveness/propitiation, expiation, Pelagius' & Abelard's moral example/influence, Pentecostal/Animist/Hemomancy view, the <our old neo-pentecostal denomination> view (a variation on the Pentecostal view), and the ceremonial cleansing view. And I got a strongly negative reaction from <J> about it, and he assured me that lots of people hate reading things that explain alternate viewpoints without just advocating for a position. It was a really unpleasant conversation that left a lasting impression on me. Nobody except my own sons gave me positive feedback about that teaching, so I decided not to do it again. The congregation I preach to every week is so uneducated that they would find such material boring and academic.

So, maybe I haven't explained this before, but here's why I avoid Romans, besides that it's overdone and overused by everyone else. 25 years ago, I read some very compelling academic articles and books about the Greek word "pistis" (faith), especially in Romans and Galatians, arguing that all the places translated as "by faith in Christ" should actually be translated as "by the faithfulness of Christ," which completely changes the meaning of each passage. In fact, one of them argued convincingly that Romans 4 is actually NOT about Abraham being justified by his belief or faith (as opposed to works), but rather Abraham being vindicated (an alternate way to translate the word for "justified") by God's faithfulness rather than human action. And I am not sure Paul EVER contemplated that fath-vs-works idea that everybody believes now (which started with Luther) - I don't think the faith-versus-works conflict appears in the NT outside of James. I think Paul was talking exclusively about whether Gentile Christians need to keep Jewish ceremonial laws (food regulations, circumcision, and holy days) - I don't think he ever addresses the question of whether people can "earn" their way into heaven by being righteous enough, and if he had addressed it, I am not sure he would have denied that. But most people have not read these things, and will not believe me, so there's no point in writing about it. Another translation problem centers around the word "justified," as I mentioned, and I am not sure it has anything to do with forgiveness of sins or not having to earn our way into heaven. It can mean other things, like vindicated or judged, which completely changes the meaning of each passage. The same word - dikaiasune - can mean Righteousness, justification, vindication, judgment, deliverance, etc. Pick your favorite verse about justification and try substituting the other possible translations and see how it changes the meaning. I'm also not completely sure how Paul would have defined "sin." And every time he mentions "death" in Romans, I cannot tell if he is referring to spiritual or physical death, and it changes the meaning of the whole paragraph either way.

In other words, I am completely outside the debate that has been going on since the Reformation about Romans - I think everyone has it completely wrong. I don't think Paul ever conceived of Jesus' sinlessness being "imputed" to us, I don't think anyone in the early church was debating about whether you could "earn" your salvation by being sinless enough, and so on. Regarding predestination, we frame the entire debate using modern conceptions of time and knowledge, which are merely metaphors, and I am not sure we are using these concepts the same way that the Biblical writers did. I am not sure they believed that God knew everything that would happen in the future, and I don't think they believed that God already inhabited the future (that God exists in all times at once). I think Romans 9-11 is only about nations (Israel) having a special status as God's Chosen People, and has nothing to do with individual salvation. I think all of Romans is about Paul defending his exclusive focus on the Gentiles in his ministry, explaining that the Jews had their chance and blew it, and that Christianity is now open to everyone. This was a PR advance sent in anticipation of his first trip to Rome, where he feared the Christians had heard that he was anti-Jewish or antinomian. I think he had heard that the local church in Rome was a mix of Jews and Gentiles who argued constantly about whether to keep the Jewish food laws, and he feared that they already had him pegged for being on one side of this question, so he was trying to allay their fears by saying they could keep doing whatever they felt was right. Most Christians struggle to apply books like Nahum and Lamentations to their lives today because the books addressed such a specific set of events long ago. That is how I feel about Romans, I guess.

I don't see the value in introducing this approach to others right now. All the evangelicals in North America who read it will immediately dismiss anything that doesn't sound like a simple, confident explanation on the side they've already heard, and people in India and Africa don't benefit from me introducing so much uncertainty and confusion into their reading of the Bible. And most North American Christians psychologically need the Bible to mean a certain thing, to help them cope with their feelings of guilt, insecurity, fear and self-doubt. As you mentioned in some recent emails about "blaming Adam," a lot of Christians have some starting assumptions that lead to irreconcilable internal conflict - guilt and frustration - and they need Romans to mean a certain set of ideas that rescues them from their torment. I felt that torment when I was in my twenties, but not anymore.

Here's my question for you: imagine that you were one of the many Christians in church history who didn't have the book of Romans. For example, when the Bible was still a set of scrolls instead of bound volumes, lots of regions and their churches (first three centuries) would have only a partial set of the scrolls. Some language groups today still have no complete Bible in their language, they have only one or more of the Gospels and maybe Psalms. Would you be able to get all the necessary points of Christianity without the book of Romans? I believe that I could get 98.7% of what every Christian needs to know without the book of Romans (16 chapters is 1.3% of the 1189 chapters in the Bible). Most evangelicals need the book of Romans in order to find their favorite doctrines, the things they see as the main points of their religion. I think that is a sign that their whole theology is messed up. Their most important concepts are found mostly on a few pages near the end of a thick book, with the rest of the Bible being secondary or supplemental material for them. The NT writers seemed to think you could get all the doctrines of Christianity from the Old Testament plus the death & resurrection story and some ongoing revelations by the HS, because that is all the apostolic church had. I think evangelicals focus on Romans because they've completely mistranslated and misread it, and derived an elaborate theology about sin and atonement (and related concepts) that depends on Romans and is absent from most of the rest of the Bible. The book is an outlier among books of the Bible. Modern Protestants take that as a reason to give it preeminence, and for me that is a reason to be cautious about it and focus on it about 1% of the time.

My commentary on Romans would be one sentence saying something like, "Please read the entire rest of the Bible a few times and skip this book, and base your beliefs on all the other parts." Then read Romans in a way that fits with what you would have derived from the rest of the OT and NT without it.


[...]

-------------

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:05 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:

If you're one of the only persons, out of so many Christians, throughout all of history, who has this particular doubt or translational hang up - then why not just go with the crowd? [...] If you had any particular doubts about the translation in the Greek language then what about and Hab. 2 verse 4 in the Hebrew language? I also find it very hard to ignore that something very special happened with Martin Luther.... I guess what I'm saying is that maybe there's too much of your background as a lawyer and being very intelligent - and maybe even a little picky - over complicating things here ... I don't know... what do you think? is that a possibility? Maybe these are good qualities in the legal and academic professions, but a hindrance for Christian to have after a certain point. Even so I am going to I think a bit more about this [...]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:38 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:

I think the NET has some footnotes perhaps sharing your concerns? This is from Hab 2:4. I think "God's faithfulness" is a possibility here.

15 tn Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111-12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).

[...]

-------------

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, I hadn't found that note [in the NET bible] yet, but I am not surprised. My studies were about the Greek NT, but it makes sense to me that the Hebrew OT would have the same issues. When I read the OT overall, it is clearly not presenting the Protestant faith-versus-works dichotomy, but rather righteous-versus-ungodly.

The NKJV also has a few footnotes about the translation problems with pistis in the NT, or at least it did back in the 1980s. But NOBODY influential teaches that, and if I teach something too unique, everyone will give me the same reaction you did - "Who do you think you are?!? How could you be right and everyone else wrong?"

-------------

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 10:40 AM, <myself> <<myself>@gmail.com wrote:

I can still see your side of things here for sure. I just think that if God left it this unclear for that long, then He's messed up big time. So I see that less likely a scenario. On the other hand the catholic religious system presented a lot of errors [...] for centuries, but was still wrong, even though it was the majority [opinion]. So yeah, i can see both sides here. :-)

P.S. - What papers from 25 years ago were you referring to that gave you pause? You didn't mention the title/author.

-------------

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM, <My friend "D"> - <<My friend "D">stuff@gmail.com wrote:

Academic articles by a professor named George Howard (I've forgotten the titles), a doctoral dissertation by Richard Hays, a book by Krister Stendahl called Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, and a book by Lloyd Gaston called Paul and the Torah.

I'm not claiming to have discovered a secret that was hidden, except for the translation issues, which the newer versions are at least starting to footnote, as we mentioned. Maybe in another generation or two the seminary grads will have been taught about these translation problems. I am not claiming a direct revelation about this, or that God showed me this, or anything like that. I think it should have been obvious to anyone reading carefully all along, but most people don't - Romans is the book that people do not really READ, they just impute their ideas into it, scanning the page for the buzzwords that they think refer to their preconceived set of ideas. I've never met anyone who reads Romans and asks why the book is structured the way it is, why the points people claim are found there are not easily found elsewhere in the Bible, how the original audience would have understood it, and so on. And most believers today are so unfamiliar with large sections of the Bible that they have no idea that most of it is not about what they conceive as Christianity. Not saying God hid anything that I discovered. I'm saying that I read enough about it to start doubting the majority viewpoint. I almost never talk about this to anyone. [...] I can't help it that the majority view seems unsupportable to me.

Also, the same evangelicals who ignore chapters in 1 Corinthians (like chapter 11, about headcoverings, or the passages about gifts, and so on), on the basis that these are isolated references to something and therefore not core teachings, have failed to apply the same interpretive principle to Romans. Instead, they come at the Bible with their heads full of doctrines, and feast on Romans because they find there the words that they associate with their elaborate ideas. Any Christians who have been trying to learn and follow the Bible as a whole have naturally had to focus on a lot of stuff besides the Romans misinterpretations, and everyone should have known to do that, even if very few do so

[...]

As far as what you know about God saving you and Him being merciful, those concepts permeate the books of Psalms and Isaiah. The Bible teaches that God is merciful and that trusting him for salvation means trusting him to the exclusion of trusting anything else, including ourselves.

jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by jpat1975 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:52 pm

Here is my current summary of Romans as I can best make sense of it. It's not completed yet, and still being revised. My friend "D" was responding to an earlier, but not radically different version of this. I'm also curious how I could improve this to make it less biased - keeping in mind it's an overview, etc:

The Book Of ROMANS (Overview)
Romans 1:1-16:27 (ESV)
"[1:1] Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God..."

Introduction - This letter of the New Testament, was written during the Apostle Paul`s missionary journeys prior to coming to Rome (Acts 28). In general it was preparing the Christians there for his arrival, but more importantly for Jesus return. Anything specific beyond that is the subject of debate - though it does clearly address misunderstandings about Gentile converts and Mosaic Law (as per Acts 15; Gal. 2). Paul`s familiarity with Gentile culture, and his Jewish-religious upbringing made him a sensible choice to work with these audiences. This book, is seen by many Christians as a detailed description of the good news (gospel) of salvation, by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone - for everyone. Since the time of the Reformation too many Christians have cherry-picked this book for their favourite proof-texts at the expense of a wider study of the entire bible. Differing translations of words like "faith" (which could also be "faithfulness") can greatly change the meaning of a passage. Thus it's best to allow clearer passages, elsewhere, to help interpret these. For many centuries the Hebrew/historical context of the bible has also been denied to many western readers, and should be taken into account when meditating on these passages.

CHAPTERS 1 to 4 - In these opening Chapters we learn that everyone - Gentile and Jew - needs salvation. No one can be saved without Jesus. All have sinned (v3:23), and God will hold all accountable for it - even those who have never even heard of the bible. For indeed He has provided sufficient external (the creation) and internal evidence (innate morality, conscience). Regarding questions of the relationship between "faith" and "works" - Paul gives some helpful illustrations using Abraham and David (v4:4-6). Before Abraham was circumcised (e.g. "apart from works") when He was accounted righteous (justified) by God, because of faith. Both examples would certainly resonate deeply with the Jews - who held both men in high esteem.

"[8:30]...and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified...."

CHAPTERS 5 to 8 - In these Chapters, Paul, touches on all stages of our salvation, which could generally be broken down as follows:

1) JUSTIFICATION (Chapters 4-5) - This is the beginning of our salvation, where like Abraham we are saved apart from good works. Not only are we forgiven of our sins - but we furthermore declared righteous - atoned (at-one-ment) with God - as though we had never sinned!

2) SANCTIFICATION (Chapter 6-7) - Of course good works do matter, but are not the root of our salvation, but rather follows justification. This "sanctification" or "holiness", while not explicitly named here as a stage (e.g. Romans 8:30) - it is rather implied with justification. These chapters serve as a parentheses, on misunderstandings about this to correct both the lawless (Chapter 6) and the legalistic (Chapter 7). We are free to do good, out of love, and no longer out of fear. Mosaic Law has been completely done away with (because James later explains that ALL of it must be kept), and replaced by the Spirit is inscribing on our hearts Christ`s Law within us. It`s the lifelong process where we are being changed within, such that what appears on the outside is genuinely and increasingly more and more like Jesus.

3) GLORIFICATION (Chapter 8) - Finally in Chapter 8, we read about this final stage, which only happens, after this life is over. At that point we`re given incorruptible bodies - now removed from the very presence of sin - which dwelt in our "mortal bodies" or "flesh" - which the Spirit was at war within us - which was why, up until then we felt temptation (See Romans 7:17-19; 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:49-51).

"...[11:2] God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew... [11:5] ...there is a remnant, chosen by grace... [11:25] ...I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. [11:26] And in this way all Israel will be saved..."

CHAPTERS 9 to 11 - Here Paul touches on the subject of Israel`s past, present and future. Most had rejected the Gospel, and Paul longs for them to see the light as he did (Acts 9). Whatever view of the "end times" one holds to - all Christians can glean much encouragement from the clear love and patience God has demonstrated towards Israel. Nor can any honestly deny that person of Jewish ancestry has a bright future, if they receive the gospel today (like Paul did). Salvation can only happen through Jesus, and never through faithless religious rituals (e.g. what the sects who opposed Jesus were fixated on - which eventually evolved into Judaism). The the modern state as of May 1948 remains a curiosity to pay attention to, as it seems to have some kind of role in the future that impacts many nations, even today (see Zechariah 12:3). That said, it is unwise for anyone to count on putting of the decision to receive Jesus, on the basis of rather recent dispensationalist ideas that require a lot of mental gymnastics and "newspaper exegesis".

"...[14:20] Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. [15:1] ...bear with the failings of the weak... [15:2] Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to build him up..."

CHAPTERS 12 to 15 - From these Chapters we can glean some practical teachings on how to live the Christian life. Chapter 13 talks about the Christian`s relationship and attitude towards human governments, which God has allowed (e.g. Daniel 2; John 19:11; Romans 13:3). Chapter 14 and 15 deal with the proper handling of questionable things (e.g. foods sacrificed to idols - see 1 Corinthians 10), which for some weak in the faith should be avoided, while for those stronger, should not to be flaunted (so as to create any kind of stumbling block). We are not to divide over over secondary matters (e.g. foods to eat, days to observe, etc), while never losing sight that there are clear teachings in scriptures, that point out things every Christian needs to avoid (e.g. adultery, drunkenness).

"[16:1]... welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need... [16:3] Greet ...my fellow workers in Christ Jesus... [16:5] ...the church in their house... [16:6] ...who has worked hard for you... [16:8] .. my beloved in the Lord... [16:9] ... approved in Christ... who belong to the family... [16:13] ... who has been a mother to me as well... [16:14] ...and the brothers ... [16:15] ... and all the saints who are with them. [16:16] Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you."

CHAPTER 16 - In the last chapter we see Paul giving greetings to many in Rome, of whom He already knew or knew about. It`s sad that much disagreement has arisen over various subjects covered in this book - to the point where some no longer greet one another. Debatable items Christians wrongly divide over include:

FREEWILL vs PREDESTINATION - The bible doesn`t suggest that we worry if we`re predestined for Hell. The bible clearly states that God desires for all to be saved in 2 Peter 3:9. Thus we should operate under the assumption we who have already responded to His call, received Him - can remain with Him forever - by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

GOD`s FOREKNOWLEDGE - All Christian can agree that the bible clearly teaches that God sees "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). All can agree that it also clearly teaches that God asks us to "choose" (Deut. 30:11–19) "freely" (Psalm 110:3) and that He "loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7). All must agree that God cannot contradict Himself, change, nor lie (Mal. 3:6; John 10:35; Heb. 6:18). How this, freewill, and predestination are harmonized is beyond human explanation (Ecc. 3:11), just as the Trinity can`t be explained. To side exclusively with any side is the same error as insisting God cannot be a Trinity (HE is ONE yet also THREE). There are matters "too high" we should humbly accept, and are probably a test of our humility (Psalm 131:1).

ETERNAL SECURITY (ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED) - Both sides of this debate has certain valid points worth examining, while never dividing over. That said, we can say for sure that both extremes of licence and legalism are wrong. The fact is, that any true Christian already loves God, confesses their sin, and wants to be sanctified - out of LOVE. Both sides have sincere and genuine Christians saved and working, as a RESULT of their faith in Christ.

ESCHATOLOGY (RAPTURE, ISRAEL, END TIMES) - See previous chapters 9-11 comments.

Thus it is always wrong to divide over secondary matters. True Christians should always greet one another, and have the same unity we see among the Christians in this last Chapter.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by Paidion » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:52 pm

I agree with much of what D said about Romans, and how people interpret it and use it (in his Oct 2 post).
But unlike D, I don't mind talking about my thoughts. So what if people ridicule you and put you down? They did that to our Lord Jesus also, but that didn't cow Him! He proclaimed truth and righteousness regardless of the reaction to his teaching.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by jpat1975 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:32 am

This fellow is overly sensitive and seems to lose composure when his beliefs are challenged.

In any event, I was re-listening (or perhaps for the first time since it was posted) to something Steve said in 2015 during a study of romans in http://www.thenarrowpath.com/Audio_Teac ... Part_2.mp3 [starting from around the 40 minute mark or so]

I liked what Steve had to say about the GENITIVE word "of" and how it can cut both ways with regards to "righteousness OF God". Chapter 3, Luther's take seems to be justified :-) while in other parts it could mean something else. It's probably intended both ways overall and basically saying the same thing: that we are imputed righteousness from God, that no human in history could have ever earned - which testifies to God's own righteousness, by having Jesus "pick up the tab" on the cross, which permits God to justly forgive sin, for those in Christ. But my friend D seems to throw up his hands in despair and clearly thinks it's not really a good idea to teach through such a controversial books, whereas, Steve Gregg has shown time and again that it IS possible to do so, and in a way that is useful to folks on ANY side of debate. D just needs to grow a thicker skin and get over it. I still regard D as a teacher, but find Steve to be the best example of one who can teach, and is still teachable. D seems to be set in his opinions for the most part, and is too touchy I'm finding. He means well, and I think it's more of a personality thing, than anything ill-intended on his part.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by Paidion » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:51 pm

...which testifies to God's own righteousness, by having Jesus "pick up the tab" on the cross, which permits God to justly forgive sin, for those in Christ.
"Permits God to justly forgive sin"? Do you mean that if God had forgiven people before Jesus died on the cross, that He would have been doing it unjustly?

How was Jesus able to forgive sin while He lived on this earth prior to the sacrifice of Himself on the cross?

Matthew 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

Luke 7:48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

jpat1975
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:14 am

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by jpat1975 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:03 am

God knew that Jesus was going to "pick up the tab" in the future ... thereby making it just for God to forgive those prior to that point.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by Paidion » Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:29 pm

I see. So "picking up the tab" works retroactively.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by Singalphile » Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:01 am

I think he is bit too blunt and he overstates some things, but I think he's more right than wrong.

Most of the chapters in Romans seem to me to have been written to a certain group of people going through some particular problems, and we don't know that context. If Paul intended the letter to be a general theology lesson, then we would have to say that he was an unskilled teacher (though we couldn't fault him for translation difficulties). Imagine giving a lecture, and then finding that hardly any two people could agree on what you meant!

Of course, I don't think that about Paul. Romans 12-16 is perfect!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: Interesting discussion on Romans (pointless to teach???)

Post by dwilkins » Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:26 am

I'm sympathetic to your friend's frustration. Mine starts in trying to point out that chapter 1 is a description of the history of Israel, who were the only people who'd ever known God and then traded that knowledge for idols. And, I think there is something to his point of not anchoring your theology to tightly due to one book. I disagree with him backing off from teaching alternative views of Romans.

The most helpful thing I've read on Romans is Perriman's "The Future of the People of God" (which explains Romans from an eschatological point of view) :

https://www.amazon.com/Future-People-Go ... man+romans

Regarding the dikaiosune word group, my favorite book touching on that is Wright's "What Paul Really Said":

https://www.amazon.com/What-Saint-Paul- ... +nt+wright

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”