Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great Debate: Romans 1-9 - Larni and Iano
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 16 of 67 (335406)
07-26-2006 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Larni
07-26-2006 5:58 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
This is an assumption that the individual suffers guilt. It is not a universal experience to feel guilt.
Maybe people wouldn't describe it as guilt but they would, I think feel bad about the things they do for a while. Then they forget about it and put it to one side. Or perhaps justify what they did from the off and deny that they have done wrong.
I once carried a child on my shoulders for about 5 miles. After a while I got used to the weight and just trudged on. The weight became 'normal' as opposed to being the noticeable thing of the first half mile or so. When the child got off my shoulders I felt as if I was as light as a feather. Its the same with guilt. We notice we were guilty most when the guilt is removed. Its like a weight has been removed.
Interesting. What seems to come through very strongly is the view that ANY time spent in sin can erased by the power of the Gospel. I have seen versions of Christianity (such as Jar's) that imply that if we live a decent life we are saved but if we are wicked we will go to Hell (with an implication that there is a critical level of 'evility').
I spoke before above about that which lifts the heart of an evangelist and this is one of those times. You are picking up actual essences in arguments here, both the gospel according to Paul and Jars gospel. This is good. For as we move on, especially to assurance of salvation (or a Christian is guaranteed that he will be saved from the moment he becomes one) (Romans 5), we can immediately and in one fell swoop, dismiss all arguments which hold Biblical salvation by what you do or don't do: Jars gospel, Roman Catholic doctrine... whatever it is. For intrinsic in those 'gospels' is no assurance of salvation - which should raise a question in your mind if you transpose the words we used earlier for the word 'gospel'. This because such gospels cannot tell you what the line is above which we are saved. You can only chase a carrot on a stick...and cross your fingers in blind hope. God is love indeed...
As to sin. Yes. All sin is legally forgiven when you become a Christian (it was 6 months or so 'in country' before I copped on to ask forgiveness and the weight dropped off) And all sin you commit after becoming a Christian will be forgiven. Assurance of salvation says that you are sure to enter heaven. But "no impure thing shall see heaven" thus all sin MUST be cleansed. You must be spotless. And it is God who makes you spotless. He promises that he will - whether you enjoy the experience or not. Its best to not to stand too much in his way (he said pointing three fingers at himself )
I can see from your words that you do not believe that this is the case. Could we see a tactic use of this concept (by Paul) to at once destablize the iron grip of the Pharisees (of the legal LAW) and offer a 'way out' for people who have committed 'evil' acts (as defined by Pharisee law)? This allows for (at a grass roots level) Christianity to directly target the masses.
One of the problems the gospel faces is that man will not, by nature, be attracted by the gospel. He needs God to draw him to it. God must do work in order to breakdown this barrier. In the context you speak of above, the Jew had a way for sin to be 'dealt' with. The High Priests would sacrifice animals on their behalf (as per OT instruction) as a covering for sin. It wasn't that the Jew hadn't (what he thought was) a method available to him. And it didn't call for much in the way of difficulty - just pay for a lamb (or a dove if you weren't well off) and have it sacrificed once a year.
The gospel, if correctly understood asks for an infinitely larger sacrifice from a man - which is why man, in his natural state has so much difficulty with it. The gospel says there is nothing positive that a man can do in order to have his sin finally and completely dealt with. He cannot earn his salvation by what he does or doesn't do. He must place himself in the hands of God for his salvation. He must believe what God says and trust God to do what God says he will when this trust is placed in him. This requires, in essence, the giving up of dependance on self. He cannot rely on himself - it is out of his hands. And man hates doing that - for to rely on another to do this for you automatically places you in their debt. You are indebted to them. And Adams fall, afterall, was a desire to be independant of God, not to remain indebted to him. Listen to what the serpent tempted Eve with:
quote:
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Adam and Eve sought to be independant of God. To know what God said not to know. To be like him and not be what they were, reliant on him. Not to take the instruction given (given for their own good) but to go as they saw fit. The relationship is Father/Son - but man (with Adams inherited dead spirit) doesn't want to be a son, he doesn't want to take instruction from anybody - by nature.
I don't think the gospel is a good tactic in the manner you suggest. Sure, forgiveness of all sin is attractive - but when man sees what is involved: being placed back in proper relationship and being dependant on God again, he rears back. "No thank you very much!"
I have an image of cells of Christianity being set with an in built sense of opposition to the incumbant 'legal' Pharisee dogma.
This is the case but it is a by product rather than headline rationale. When a person comes to know God they come to hate legalistic approaches - for legalistic approaches are the work of sin in a man (aided and abetted by our old friend "the Enemy").
Do you see this growing Christianity as a reaction to Pharisee oppression?
Not really to be honest. It was Gods intention that Christianity be spread to the ends of the earth:
quote:
Matt 24:14 And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.
Mark 13:10 And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.
And as is so often the case God turns evil action to good use. God knew of beforehand and thus used the evil action of men in order to achieve a goal of his: that Jesus Christ be sacrificed (in order to have a gospel this had to happen). Similarily he knew that persecution would cause the message he was to reveal to spread around the world. Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated on account of him - not surprisingly: the gospel tells man that he is a rotten before God. Bankrupt. It was all known beforehand.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 07-26-2006 5:58 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 7:45 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 17 of 67 (336836)
07-31-2006 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
07-26-2006 8:54 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
Iano writes:
This requires, in essence, the giving up of dependance on self.
Can we see this being acted out in the story of Jesus dieing on the cross?
Iano writes:
Not to take the instruction given (given for their own good) but to go as they saw fit.
This makes me think that God looks at humanity rather than the individual.
Iano writes:
Similarily he knew that persecution would cause the message he was to reveal to spread around the world.
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but I see oppression popping up several times thematically in our discourse.
Could you explain how the premise that 'the gospel tells man that he is a rotten before God' is not thematically oppressive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 07-26-2006 8:54 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 9:28 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 18 of 67 (336870)
07-31-2006 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Larni
07-31-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
This requires, in essence, the giving up of dependance on self.
Can we see this being acted out in the story of Jesus dieing on the cross?
Jesus never 'gave up his independance' for he never acted independantly. He always did his fathers will and always placed himself in his fathers hands. He trusted his father implicitly in everything he did. He was the perfect obedient son - never doing anything that his father did not want him to do. Even in the garden of Gethsemene he asked his father if this cup could pass him by (what he was about to undergo both physically and spiritually on the cross). He concluded his request with "not my will but yours be done".
He would have needed to have acted independantly at least once in order to give it up. He never did.
Dependence on self results in us being disobedient for we do not do what God asks of us. We cannot do it in fact - we, unlike Jesus, are sinners. We shall see this at Romans 3:20 where Paul will conclude with his argument as to why all are in need of the gospel. He also tells us in brief incidently, what Gods revealed purpose was in giving the law to man.
quote:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through (or, by means of) the law we become conscious of sin.
As we shall see, the admission of guilt before God, admitting that we have been going our own way, acting independently of him - whichever way you want to put it - is the turning point at which a man is saved. But there is still work to be done by God in restoring us back in complete fashion - to restore us into the image of his son - to the point where we will obey him. He promise he will complete this work if once started. Its not like we become automatons: Jesus could hardly be described as one. The person making such a confession and who comes to know God finds out that he is worthy of obedience. That he is mind boggling beautiful. The person finds that this exposure makes them want to obey God - their free will wants that to be the case. God just enables them to do what it is they now want to do.
Much of this is revealed throughout the chapters we will be dealing with.
Not to take the instruction given (given for their own good) but to go as they saw fit.
This makes me think that God looks at humanity rather than the individual.
I don't get you here Larni.
Similarily he knew that persecution would cause the message he was to reveal to spread around the world.
I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here but I see oppression popping up several times thematically in our discourse.
It does indeed. Man doesn't like being told what the gospel tells him. We have a sinful nature in us which is dark and which leads us into dark things. And like anyone who does dark things we do not like these things to have light shone on them. We hate our darkness to be revealed. Its in our nature to hate and struggle against that which attempts to drag us out into the light. Take our very next verse in which Paul sets the theme he will now discuss which concludes at Romans 3:20 (we will move through it quickly after examining this one verse later)
"I proclaim this gospel of which I am not ashamed. For it is Gods very own power unto the salvation of man. And why does man need it?..." Because...
quote:
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
The pharisees were at it in Jesus' day culminating in his crucifixion. Tradition has it that all but the apostle John died violent deaths. We have Stephen the first martyr, Christians thrown to lions. Christians today locked up in sea containers in the baking heat in Eritrea, anti-conversion laws pending in Sri Lanka etc. Jesus said "If they hate you remember that they hated me first" The gospel will be oppressed - it is to be expected.
Could you explain how the premise that 'the gospel tells man that he is a rotten before God' is not thematically oppressive?
The gospel is oppressed because it itself is oppressive. Darkness is oppressed by light. The gospel is light and darkness must flee before it. Not all oppression is bad no more than all pain is bad. It depends on ones perspective and man needs to be told the truth about his position before God if anything is to be done about that situation.
Take Gods law too (which is intrinsic to the workings of the gospel). The law is oppressive for it says that if a man cannot keep it then he will be punished for his transgression of it. This does not make Gods law bad anymore than a 30mph speed limit is bad. The person who wants to break the speed limit is oppressed by the 30mph speed limit which says he cannot.
The thing about the law on its own is that it offers no escape from itself. It is as it is. "Do this or else..." The gospel mechanism oppresses (using in part, the oppression offered by the law) in order to press a man into a corner - if only he will allow himself to be pressed there. He doesn't have to be cornered but if the gospel works on him and he finds himself cornered then cry out to God he will. You can skip ahead if you like and look at the end section of Romans 7 to see what a man (who has been thus oppressed by the gospel) finally ends up crying out.
You up for some more. I figured to finish of with 16 and 17 with a few points to note then look at 18. As I say, it sets the theme for the argument up to 3:20. After that the really interesting bits start off. Chapter 4? Salvation by faith (alone - no works). Chapter 5? Assurance that if you have been saved then you cannot loose it no matter what happens.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 7:45 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 11:01 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 19 of 67 (336891)
07-31-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by iano
07-31-2006 9:28 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
Iano writes:
He trusted his father implicitly in everything he did.
Did he not say "...Father way have you forsaken me?"
Iano writes:
Not to take the instruction given (given for their own good) but to go as they saw fit.
JP writes:
This makes me think that God looks at humanity rather than the individual.
Iano writes:
I don't get you here Larni.
What I mean is that all of humanity is fallen (as a result of our progenitor Adam's crime). In past discourse with you I had the sense that living outside of God's love forced upon us (the non saved) certain eventuallities that are fundemental functions of reality/creation.
That is to say God does not send us to Hell, but if we chose not to take the (logical) steps (i.e. to accept that you cannot take the right steps alone), to Hell we will go, whether or not we live like a saint creation has certain boundaries that only Gods love can over come.
Taking this as given I meant that the Gospel (as an 'agent' of God) seeks to redress this not just for the individual, but humanity as whole.
Iano writes:
The gospel is oppressed because it itself is oppressive.
That's not quite what I meant; I found the Law of the Pharissees to be the cause of oppression. The gospel seems to be the way forwards from a climate of oppression. I hope that clarifies my point.
Iano writes:
You up for some more.
Continue, please. This is very interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 9:28 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 12:50 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 21 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 1:28 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 22 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 7:23 PM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 20 of 67 (336926)
07-31-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
07-31-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
Did he not say "...Father way have you forsaken me?"
If you look back at the gospels you will see that Jesus perenially addresses God the Father as "Father". Sonship relationship. Earlier on, on the cross, he said: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". Still sonship relationship. Then...
quote:
"My God, My God why have you foresaken me!
The only time Jesus addresses God directly not as Father, but as 'God' is at this point. God is everyones God whether they like it or not. It is a fitting form of address but not one that infers sonship.
God cannot look upon evil and as the sins of mankind were laid upon Jesus the perfect relationship that had existed from all eternity was ruptured, destroyed. The father turned his face away from his son and poured his wrath against sin out on he who was in possession of it - Jesus.
And for someone who had never experienced (like we do - even as Christians) what it is to have a broken relationship with the father, the anguish of separation/wrath would have been immense. Infinitely so. The punishment happened in eternity. How long this time of punishment in eternity? Who can know? Even a Christian will tell you what an awful thing it is to have the father at a distance rather than up close (this is caused by our own sin). And we, relatively speaking, only see him through a glass darkly
Incidently, Jesus was quoting from Psalm 22:1 - which shares uncanny resemblance to the account of the crucifixion: his clothes being divided by lot, his hands and feet pierced, people mocking him and saying "let God save him now!" Its worth reading closely in its entirety.
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Then, just before he dies: "Father, into your hands I commend (or give up) my spirit" He was obedient all the way down the line. The punishment is over, the price has been paid, his mission complete, the relationship is restored to what it was. Then...
"It is finished". What God incarnate came to do for man has been done. It is time for the next piece of the plan to unfold.
What I mean is that all of humanity is fallen (as a result of our progenitor Adam's crime). In past discourse with you I had the sense that living outside of God's love forced upon us (the non saved) certain eventuallities that are fundemental functions of reality/creation.
That is to say God does not send us to Hell, but if we chose not to take the (logical) steps (i.e. to accept that you cannot take the right steps alone), to Hell we will go, whether or not we live like a saint creation has certain boundaries that only Gods love can over come.
In a sense this is the case. But I think it would be more accurate to say that there are certain things about God that God himself cannot change. He cannot look on sin. His wrath must be poured out on it. For he IS wrathful (righteously so, not because he is petty or piqued). In the same way as him BEING love. He cannot not be this way. So he does actively cast us into hell for that it but a part of the wrath. It is a personal action rather than an impersonal one (for God is a personal God). But you are right in the sense that it is an inevitable aspect of remaining as fallen creatures.
...but if we chose not to take the (logical) steps
Just a quick word on this. You are getting the essential gist of it but it is worth fine tuning to note perfect. As shall be argued by Paul, we don't chose to take the right steps, God draws us into taking those steps - if we do take them it is bacause of his grace us-wards. We can do nothing positive ourselves. We can chose not to take the steps he is encouraging (through whatever means that might be) to take however. God's grace vs mans Rejection. That is it globally.
Taking this as given I meant that the Gospel (as an 'agent' of God) seeks to redress this not just for the individual, but humanity as whole.
The gospel is a expression of Gods love for us (whilst still sinners). His love for us concieved of it and put the componants together which would make it an effective mechanism. The chief componant is his sacrifice of his son - it was essential that sin could be transferred away from us to someone who God would accept as a suitable sacrifice. There was only one able to take this on - God himself. Gods love did this.
And it is his wrath from which his love attempts to save us. God isn't curing some anomally made possible through the fall - he is attempting to protect us from himself.
(Forgiveness: the person offended against must be the one who pays the price. They must swallow the offence and pay whatever is due in order for it truly forgiveness. A person who forgives another for denting their fender and then sends them a bill hasn't forgiven the dent. Perhaps they have foregiven them the inconvenience for having to fill out insurance forms and take the car to the garage. But they haven't forgiven them the dent. For God to truly forgive us he must pay the price his wrath against sin demands. His justice does not allow him to sidestep things. God cannot take our sins and then let himself off the hook. He must pay and pay in full.
What a God eh?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 11:01 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 21 of 67 (336930)
07-31-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
07-31-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (the gospel in summary) continued..
That's not quite what I meant; I found the Law of the Pharissees to be the cause of oppression. The gospel seems to be the way forwards from a climate of oppression. I hope that clarifies my point.
The Law of the Pharisees is in essence the Law of God. And Gods law is oppressive to one who cannot keep it if they are concerned about doing so. I promised I would give an example from real life earlier and forgot. Here it is.
Martin Luther, the reformer, was at one time a Roman Catholic monk. Now one of the aims of monasticism is to remove a man from the world of worldly temptation. It takes man away from the porn movies, from exposure to the 'wicked hussies' whose dress code inflames lust in a man, away from the ravages of materialism and the temptations that pour into a man when he is consumed with drink. In short, it attempts to create an environment which will allow a man the opportunity to obey the law fully. If salvation were about obeying the law fully in fact, then monasticism is a perfectly common sensical thing to do.
Now Luther was in a desperate quandry. He struggled over the verse we have looked at: Romans 17; "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed". He understood this to mean that Christ coming was a revelation from God about Gods take on righteousness. Jesus, he thought, represented a model of the righteousness that God required man to achieve if he was to be saved. And the thought wrought agony. For despite the monasticism, Luther knew that in essence he fell far short of this mark. Many things could be avoided in a monastary. But not a man his own thoughts. His fantasties, his selfishness, his lies and deciet. They all followed him. Luther saw that if this was the standard he had to achieve then achieve it he never would.
And then it struck him: It WASN'T a standard that God required man to meet, it was that the righteousness that a man needs to enter heaven is supplied BY God himself: "a righteous FROM God IS revealed. And it is by (means of this thing called) faith.." IOW, if God is to forgive a man then God must be the one who supplies that which is necessary to allow forgiveness to be forgiveness. The offender cannot be asked to supply it - especially if he is unable)
Luther is not the only man to have been converted by this verse, but the dawning of the meaning of this verse meant it all clicked into place for him - the whole darn shooting match. For it is only by seeing that verse in this way does the whole of Romans suddenly fall into place. A wrong take will make it impossible to follow the arguement as a complete whole. It was this insight, this revealing by God to him what it was the verse meant that resulted in Luthers conversion and almost Saul-like he turns from devout Catholic into devout zealot for the Gospel. Another man who was ideally positioned to make an impression: an insider, a fifth columnist.
This whole we will continue, God willing, to unwrap.
Anyway, to answer your question about the oppressive law. We shall see that the Law of God, if taken as something which one must adhere to for ones salvation is described as "the law of sin and death" - for that is all it will bring. All the law does for a man who is under it is to bring condemnation - for man will have broken it and justice demands that lawbreakers be punished. Try to obey is not contained within the gospel - that is a fabrication by a man who knows he cannot obey. A get out clause that fools only himself.
quote:
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now NO condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through (or by means of) Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life SET ME FREE from the law of sin and death.
A Christian is a person who is set free from condemnation because of his lawbreaking. Why? Because the price demanded for lawbreaking has been paid. By Christ. It is through (what) Christ (has done) that we are set free. That is the mechanism of that aspect of our salvation (I listed earlier that there where many facets of salvation. Freedom from being under the law (in the sense of possibly being condemned by it) is one of those)
"If the son has set you free - you will be free indeed" And this is how free: NO condemnation IF you are in Christ. IF you are IN Christ THEN there is NO condemnation. What is it that condemns? The law. Can the law condemn a man if he is no longer under it? Of course not. What makes a man free from the law? Being in Christ. It is worth sometimes rolling through logic verses like that - it helps extract their full import.
That is all you need to be. To be in him. The gospels aim is to put you there. And it is fascinating how that is accomplished. Genius in fact. As we shall see.
Continue, please. This is very interesting.
I'm glad you find it so. I'll finish off on 16/17 this evening - there are just a couple of points to mention. Then onto 18. Then we can start moving more swiftly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 11:01 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 22 of 67 (337034)
07-31-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Larni
07-31-2006 11:01 AM


Romans 1:16-17 (finishing up with Pauls theme setting)
To finish with verses 16-17: Reasons not to be ashamed of the gospel
7. The gospel itself is not just a description about something that God is doing.
The gospel itself is “the power of God unto salvation”. It would be like saying: "electricity is the power of the utility company unto illuminating light bulbs". The gospel is not just a form of words decribing something God did, but insofar as it is, even those words have power. This may seem a little far fetched but the thing is that they are Gods own words (if expressed through the vehicle of man: remember the point made that God has always dealt with sinful man through a man: Noah, Moses, King David, even Jesus ).
“In the beginning” we read in Genesis. “God said: ”let there be light’ “. His word is enough to cause something to happen. God spoke the world into existence - his word is effectual in and of itself. I gave the example of Martin Luther being converted whilst reading the very verses under discussion. God transmits his saving power through various devices: conscience, nature, billboards, evangelists, pain & suffering, etc. Another way he transmits this saving power is through the device of words. Words are a vehicle for the power that is the gospel. Gods power is like power we are familiar with. Power is the ability to do work.
Luthers own testimony about this verse illustrates the difficulty a man experiences in trying to understand the Bible when Gods power has not yet illuminated it for him:
quote:
I laboured diligently and anxiously so as to understand Paul’s word in Romans 1:17, where he says that “the righteousness of God is revealed” in the gospel. I sought long and knocked anxiously, for the expression “the righteousness of God” blocked the way. As often as I read that declaration I wished always that God had not made the gospel known because this fuller revelation (beyond the Old Testament revelation) of the righteousness of God seemed to make me utterly hopeless and helpless and I did not know what to do with myself; the righteousness of God blocked the way
But that was Luther trying to understand with own intellect and own reasoning. Then God revealed it to him. He then got it! He read something he had read so often before and suddenly... it became clear. The power of the gospel revealed what it was that was being said, in fact. Read it yourself with the explanation given. The righteousness (we need) from God has been revealed (in a general sense) to man. Surely we can say “Yes, it is possible to read it like that (even if we do not agree it means that). A learned, godly man like Martin Luther could not read it that way however. Not until power revealed it to him. He was blind - he just couldn’t see it. It’s easier for us now - we may intellectually agree that this is the case - which helps us in terms of salvation not one jot, but for a man who had not the benefit of the reformation to aid him even this was impossible to see under own steam. Many still do not see it such. But it fits as Paul is going to show.
A word about ”righteousness’
There are many words we will come across during this thread about which we may well have our own notions. ”Faith' is one case in point and many have their own idea about what faith is. 'Righteousness' is another such word. Like ”salvation’ it is worth going into in a little detail regarding it so as to get some fuller handle on it - as it is meant in the context of this argument. The word 'faith' is used a lot in the epistle.
Righteousness is first and foremost an attribute in the character of God. It means that everything that God does is right and for the right reasons. Naturally this will be the case, for God is the one who defines what is right. He is the measure, the very standard against which all our potential righteousness is compared in order to evaluate. What he says is right . is right, irrespective of what we think. Simple enough that?
For example: all he does out of love for us (even if it causes us temporal pain) is right. If he expresses wrath against us because of our sin then that is right too. He can do nothing wrong, for “he is light and in him is no darkness at all” - not a single solitary atom of it. And if we consider it a little, we will find that we very often agree with him. We are indeed fallen, but have sufficient likeness with him remaining in us so as to agree (if only in principle) with him. We agree that wrongdoing should be punished - we grey the edges as to what wrongdoing actually involves with our subjective morality. We do have our fashions and fads. Today it is wrong, tomorrow it is not. He never changes however. We agree that disciplining a child is a good thing for the child even if the child at that moment would prefer it otherwise. And so he disciplines those who he has adopted as children (Christians). We yearn for a world where peace reigns (even if we are not prepared/able to act consistently in a way that results in that happening). He is going to make it so for that is a goal of his. This is not an exhaustive comparison but no matter. What matters more as far as salvation is concerned, is righteousness in us in so far as it is viewed by God.
I’ll quote Martyn Lloyd Jones here for he puts it well:
Righteousness . of necessity means a conformity to God, a conformity to Gods law, a conformity to Gods demands. Righteousness is that which is acceptable to God, which is well-pleasing in Gods sight; so righteousness in man must mean that man is capable of meeting Gods demands, Gods desideratum. It means that man so deals with himself that he is acceptable in the sight of God. It means that man meets with Gods approval. It means that man is acceptable with God because he is now like God himself (as we were first made: in his image and likeness). That is the meaning of ”righteousness’ . And what the apostle is saying here is that he rejoices in the gospel because Gods righteousness for man (in order that man can be made righteous and thus acceptable to God)... has been revealed
8. The good news shows how this righteousness is actually obtained.
The righteousness which is so important for us is obtained by faith. That faith plays a vital role is an inescapable conclusion to be drawn; for in these two verses alone, faith is implicated no less than 4 times - if you include ”believeth’:
quote:
16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith”
What is faith? Well it is perhaps helpful to understand what faith is by illustrating something of what faith isn’t.
When you hop on a bus you do not have faith in the bus driver to safely drive you home. What you are doing there is applying mathematical probability. The probability that you will run off the side of a cliff on the way home is very slender and so you sit quite comfortably on the bus chatting with a companion without worrying about it. “Millions do this every day with virtually no problem so there is virtually no reason to suppose my number will come up tonight - and so I can relax about it” - you say to yourself unconciously. That is not faith as it is meant here.
Faith is not some lesser entity which we have to generate up in ourselves instead of following the letter of the law in full. A kind of sop to us from God due to our inability to obey the law in all its fullness. Its not as if God said “You cannot obey my law but if you will only have faith and believe in me then you can have this righteousness that you require” A kind of lesser standard than obeying all the law.
Our faith is not what makes us righteous, it is not that which makes God consider us to be innocent and pure in his eyes. As should be becoming clear from earlier: it is the fact that our sins are punished in Christ which results in us being considered by him as innocent. We are no longer considered to be in possession of sin because, and only because, our sin has been dealt with by him. We can be declared innocent by God and seen as perfect in his sight only because we do not have sin on our account. Like I said, the gospel is quite technical and logical. There is no room for generalisations and conflation of issues. Each element has a function and that includes faith. But faith is not righteousness.
Although the two positions are often held as opposing (salvation by works (or faith & works) vs. salvation by faith alone) faith is not the opposite of works. Salvation by works says that you gain the righteousness you need by what you do, how you act, how well you obey the commandments. The opposite of that is gaining righteousness because of what Jesus did FOR you. "Salvation by my works vs. salvation by his works" is the proper way to state it if trying to draw opposites.
We cannot boast of our faith. As in “my faith saved me”. Faith is not something that you work up in yourself. You cannot simply have faith in a vacuum. God must supply your faith for you to have any. Now works can be boasted of: a person can say that they saved themselves due to them accomplishing x,y,z. It matters not whether those works are going to mass, praying, fasting, offering up sacrifices or generally being a good egg. Salvation is a result of myself and my efforts. I earned my salvation in some sense. There is no gift involved or possible if Ididiit. That salvation is a gift from God will too become clearly apparent.
Faith (in the context of salvation) is in fact a twofold entity. Faith is the channel (or highway) which Gods sets in place between himself and a person. And it is along this highway called faith that God sends the parcel of righteousness - the righteousness that I need to be considered innocent in his sight. And faith is also the receptacle or docking station that God gives me so that I can receive the parcel of righteousness he has sent to me.
His righteousness needs to attach itself to me. Consider the OT account of the Passover where the angel of death 'passed over' the houses of those who had the blood of the sacrificed lamb daubed on the door posts. The angel of death ”needed’ a recognition symbol in order to pass-over those families. That is Gods order of things. And so it is with us w.r.t. salvation. We need the badge or marker of righteousness to be pinned to us so that we can be seen as belonging to God. We need it to attach itself to us. Christians are described often in the NT as being “robed in Christ’s righteousness” - as if it were a cloak placed around our shoulders. We wear this righteousness as a cloak, a garment. It is not intrinsic to us - it is something given us, placed upon us. This very thing is the subject of one of Jesus’ parables:
quote:
The parable of the wedding banquet Matthew 22:
11"But when the king (God) came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes (a robe of righteousness).
12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness (Hell), where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
This twofold aspect of faith shall be drawn out further. Paul is, as has been mentioned, setting out the main elements of the theme he will enter into in detail during this epistle. And so he expresses it in economic, un-elaborate fashion here. Its just global statement at the moment.
quote:
Romans 17: “by (or through the channel of) faith to (the receptacle of) faith”
And to finish off his opening general statement, Paul demonstrates that this way of salvation is the way it has always been. It was the way in Old Testament times and it remains so in the New.. and always will be this way. God doesn't change.
quote:
“The just (or righteous) shall live by faith” (OT Habbakuk)
The righteous have always lived by (or by means of/through) faith, as chapter 4 will demonstrate. Or to apply the technique I described earlier you might read it this way: “the righteous.... by (or by means of the mechanisms of) faith....shall live (for eternity)”
or...
"The righteous, by faith, shall live"
TTFN:
That's Romans 1:16 and 17 dealt with. An opening statement in which the general, yet crucial, aspects of the gospel of Christ are presented in broad brushstokes. There is this good news and it has this character. This we now know. Paul is approaching this in painstaking fashion and he must, you might agree, now argue why it is that this good news is good news at all. We must be in need of what it is he says God has provided for us in order for it to be good news. If we need it not then what's good about it?
It stands to reason that he should argue so now, immediately. And he does. Verse 18 will tell us why we need this good news. Again he does so globally. 16 and 17 sets out the theme of the whole letter in general. Verse 18 sets out the narrower theme of the next section which continues all the way to 3:20.
And the main theme from 1:18? God is angry with us - and because he is we need something to escape out from under the consequences of him being angry with us. So much for your fluffy, soft God of the New Testament as beloved of so many!
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Larni, posted 07-31-2006 11:01 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Larni, posted 08-03-2006 12:33 PM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 23 of 67 (337696)
08-03-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
07-31-2006 7:23 PM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (finishing up with Pauls theme setting)
Iano writes:
The gospel itself is “the power of God unto salvation”.
I take this to mean that the words of the gospel are simply the format used to transmit the phenomena of the gospel. It does not seem far fetched to me but if I told you why it may derail this exercise.
Iano writes:
Naturally this will be the case, for God is the one who defines what is right.
I take this to mean that the nature of God defines the nature of the universe, God is the Universe?
Iano writes:
For example: all he does out of love for us (even if it causes us temporal pain) is right.
This is how I see it (from the Christian point of view I hope): If we play a game of rugby and we insist on knocking the ball on (inspite of the rules) we will get sent off and will not enjoy the game. If we do this over and over we will get cut from the team.
Now, we could claim that we did not know the rules and this may be true; but we still get sent off becausde that is nature of rugby. The ref embodies the rules and enforces them but does not change them because then we would not be playing rugby. The rules come from the nature of the game (and here I equate the nature of the game to the nature of creation).
If we read the rule book we can know how to play well and contribute to the mighty game (or Creation). While the words in the rule book may seem like words, they are infact what lets us interact with the game (Creation).
Have to go now but feel free to comment on this (and if I've totally missed your point about the gospel please put me out of my misery, .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 07-31-2006 7:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 08-03-2006 8:33 PM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 24 of 67 (337821)
08-03-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Larni
08-03-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (finishing up with Pauls theme setting)
I take this to mean that the words of the gospel are simply the format used to transmit the phenomena of the gospel. It does not seem far fetched to me but if I told you why it may derail this exercise.
You have almost derailed it already: I am flabbergasted by your grasp. I would use the word 'medium' rather than 'format' - but that is being picky. I think I understand your sense of 'simple' although I am sure, in another sense, you accept that transmission of an effectual mechanism (which leads to a persons eternal salvation) through words is as simple as designing a spider to weave a web.
Derail? Unlikely. You know how tenacious I am by now. Pray tell..
Naturally this will be the case, for God is the one who defines what is right.
I take this to mean that the nature of God defines the nature of the universe, God is the Universe?
Not in a pantheistic sense: God is not in the flowers no more than Iano is in the food factory. The universe is a product. But his nature is reflected in it as mine is in the factory I recently built. His creativity, his power, his beauty and yes...his wrath. All aspects of him are there to be seen. But only as reflections of him. You won't see HIM himself in nature. You only see him when you come. Its the way it is. But if considering nature from that viewpoint then staggering is a probable conclusion. Mind saggingly staggering. And it is the person whose product sags your mind who want to know you one to one. Even more mind sagging..
This is how I see it (from the Christian point of view I hope): If we play a game of rugby and we insist on knocking the ball on (inspite of the rules) we will get sent off and will not enjoy the game. If we do this over and over we will get cut from the team.
Now, we could claim that we did not know the rules and this may be true; but we still get sent off becausde that is nature of rugby. The ref embodies the rules and enforces them but does not change them because then we would not be playing rugby. The rules come from the nature of the game (and here I equate the nature of the game to the nature of creation).
If we read the rule book we can know how to play well and contribute to the mighty game (or Creation). While the words in the rule book may seem like words, they are infact what lets us interact with the game (Creation).
Put it this way. Being a Christian and holding this view would not be indicative of you not being a Christian. It would in my mind be a partial view and one I would add to and modify - but my own view too is partial (through a glass darkly) and I could only appeal to a few more years in country in order to request a hearing. Nothing empirical like..
Yes, we are playing a game and he is the one who steers it. He is the manager of the team - as well as the ref. But his steering (manager) and control (ref) is the main event - not us winning or losing or even enjoying the game - his end purpose is the championship not the game at hand - he might want us to lose this game in order that we get a better fixture in the next round. If we break the rules (better: if we play against the plan he has for the tournament)we can get sent off (disciplined) or suspended outright (we die)
It can be that we know the rules. Or rather..he will not send us off or suspend us without making the rules (or his instructions) known to us. But it could also be that he substitutes us whilst we thought we were (and even were in fact) playing a stormer. Tactically, in the bigger scheme our substitution can be the best move. We might not get to play another game (we die) but no matter - we know a) He knows what he is doing b) He will win the tournament c) Whether red carded or tactically substituted we will join in the celebration in the end - when the cup has been won. We are always a team member. We never will not be.
Have to go now but feel free to comment on this (and if I've totally missed your point about the gospel please put me out of my misery,
Like I say: flabbergasted at the grasp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Larni, posted 08-03-2006 12:33 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 08-04-2006 5:18 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 25 of 67 (337863)
08-04-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by iano
08-03-2006 8:33 PM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (finishing up with Pauls theme setting)
Iano writes:
Like I say: flabbergasted at the grasp.
Flabbergasted in a good way?
or in a bad way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by iano, posted 08-03-2006 8:33 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 08-04-2006 7:26 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 26 of 67 (337875)
08-04-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Larni
08-04-2006 5:18 AM


Re: Romans 1:16-17 (finishing up with Pauls theme setting)
In a good way.
So that's that as far as Pauls opening statements go. We know that this man himself went through a dramatic conversion which transformed him from polar north to polar south..from darkness to light. He says that he has been commissioned by God himself, to deliver to these Christians in Rome, further explanation about what it is that resulted in their salvation. They don't have to know this in order to be saved - no more than the tax collector that came to Jesus and said "Lord" had to know, or the thief on the cross had to know, or even Cornelius, the centurion - one of the (if not the) first non-Jew (Gentile) to be saved had to know. The point of him writing about what he going to write about is to build them up in their faith - to establish and strengthen them. Salvation is only a beginning for them. As it is today. Like those Christians in Rome, I read the letter after I was saved and like them, it built up my own faith. From faith (the highway) to faith (the receptacle).
He has set out his stall more precisely in verse 16 and 17. There aren't many words contained in these verses but we have seen how condensed the statement is, that the ideas contained within are very powerful ones indeed in the way that they describe this gospel:
- the power of God is behind it.
- it is for all men anywhere at anytime.
- it concerns a mans salvation which can be globally held to be his being in a position of right-standing before God.
- it is a revelation from God - not a philosopy or any other man made thing.
- it is delivered and received by a thing called faith. We have looked a little at what faith is and and what it isn't.
Little wonder Paul is not ashamed! And if you have ever wondered at why someone would take the abuse and ridicule that is sure to come when you talk to people about God and the gospel - whether here or anywhere else - then this is the answer:
"for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is Gods power leading to salvation for everyone who believes it, whatever their current status may be: Hindu, atheist, agnostic..it doesn't matter. The power of the gospel can cut through any of that"
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 08-04-2006 5:18 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 08-04-2006 9:45 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 27 of 67 (337893)
08-04-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by iano
08-04-2006 7:26 AM


Romans 1:18 - 3:20 "Why the gospel is needed by all men"
We have ended above with Pauls summary of the argument he is about to embark on. His introduction. Next we will begin with the argument proper, at the top of page 1 as it were.
And interlude though - to again set some scenery. This complete argument of the gospel is going to be broken down by Paul so as to deal with the various elements that a complete argument must contain.
Below, I've given a broad outline of the book up to where we will deal with it. It would be worth reading the chapters yourself a couple of times through according to this structure and see if you get the general gist as suggested here. A bit of familiarity with the style, wording and flavour of the argument would help as we go. This way you will see that certain questions do not require to be asked (or answered) along the way if you know that they will be dealt with subsequently. Do look out especially for connecting words such as "for" and "therefore". We have seen and example of this already: "FOR I am not ashamed of the gospel....why?...FOR the gospel is the power of God unto salvation" These words point to where he is coming from - which is handy to know before you set of on where it is he is going. This is reasoned, connected argument so it is important to follow his train of argument closely so as not to go astray in it.
General overview of the arguments structure:
Romans 1:18 - 3:20 Why the gospel is needed by all men. Paul has said the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. So he must address the obvious question that follows: "so what if it is - what has that to do with me" "Well, all men need this" is Pauls response here.. "and this is why". The problem is that ALL men have sinned and have fallen short of Gods standard. They have failed to hit the target demanded by the law. Jew and Gentile alike. Following Gods Law (which is the ultimate (if sometimes hidden) goal non-gospel Religions such as RC, Mormonism, Jehovahs Witness) will not result in a mans salvation (with all that that means - see earlier). And the reason is that man cannot follow Gods law. Try as he might he cannot. It is no surprise then the "trying your best" is not included anywhere in this book as a means to salvation - nor anywhere in the Bible for that matter. A person might cherry pick a verse or a passage and form a doctrine which relies heavily on him inserting his own 'common sense' but we are following an argument that spans 9 chapters - so can dismiss such things with ease. This gospel is not an exercise in quote-mining theology.
Romans 3:20 to end of chapter - a statement that righteousness is obtained through faith in what Jesus Christ achieved
Romans 4: closely reasoned argument that righteousness through faith has always been Gods way. And why it has to be that way. That even in Old Testament times that was Gods way - this is not something new just since Jesus came. He also goes in deeper with why it is that adhering to the law cannot save a man.
Romans 5: Assurance that once having been saved by faith ones eternal destination is sealed. Once saved always saved - no matter what happens or what you do.
This chapter is a vital one amongst a vital book for it explains the mechanism by which sin came into all men through the unrighteous action of one man (Adam) and how sin can be dealt with in all men through the righteousness of one man (Christ).
Romans 6: Paul inserts a parenthesis in the argument. An aside. He stops in mid-flow to deal with an obvious objection a person can make when they hear this good news says a person cannot lose their salvation "Hey that means I can sin all I like - and go to heaven. Party on!!". He shows that something has happened a Christian which makes such thinking an impossibility for a Christian. They have gotten a little more that they bargained for.
Romans 7: the parenthesis is continued. Now Paul deals with another obvious objection that can be made. "What about the Law then? I mean: if salvation is in no measure obtained by observing the law then what is the point of it!" Paul has on a number of occasions to date told us in passing what the purpose of the Law is. He shows now how the law isn't set aside by the gospel, that it has purpose and what that purpose is in detail. He culminates towards the end in a demonstration of the laws purpose in action on a man up to the point of salvation: It convicts a man that he is a sinner before God and all that that entails "Oh wretched man that I am..."
Romans 8: Paul has closed the parenthesis having dealt with those general objections. He continues on with the argument he was making in Chapter 5 (If saved by faith then you can be assured your salvation is certain). He opens in verse 1 with a restatement of that fact: "No condemnation if you are in Christ (which is were God put you - as we will have seen on the way here)" He then illustrates the mechanics of this and how God achieved this.
Being saved doesn't in any way shape or form mean life is plain sailing from now on. There may be trouble, there may be strife, there will be sin in your life - you remain a sinner. This latter may lead a person to doubt that they are indeed saved or that they can lose the salvation they had (they go back to the thinking that they must adhere to the law to be saved). But remember, Paul is writing to strengthen and encourage the Christians in Rome (and Christians everywhere so as to offset this possibility. I mentioned before that you should hold in your mind that this letter is addressed primarily to Christians. That is the context - even thought the gospel contained can convert a man to Christianity.
He underlines his assurance argument by culminating with the statement "Nothing can separate us (Christians) from the love of God" Nothing at all. Its assurance all the way down the line in argument and statement of same. No one has any need to lack assurance if they once grasp Pauls argument. God being a loving father now, doesn't want his adopted sons to stew in doubt and fear.
Chapter 9
There is the question of Israel. Gods chosen people. These people were the people who God had dealt with down the ages. Everything had come through them - the law, the prophets, the Messiah (or Saviour) himself - even Peter, Paul and the NT. "Are you dismissing Judaism and the Jews with this gospel" Paul can be rightly asked. Paul goes on to show that the Jews got the wrong end of the stick. They mis-interpreted what God was saying (in the OT). They are as blind as anyone else. He shows that they are not chosen people (in terms of salvation) by virtue of being Jews (as they thought - and think). 'Israel' is a spiritual nation, made up of the saved people (whether Jew or Gentile), not a physical nation made up of just Jews. Jews need to be saved by the gospel as does anyone else.
He goes on to deal with the issue of Gods chosing who will be saved. The doctrine of predestination. God "electing" and "choosing" according to his sovereign choice. Ultimately a person is saved for one reason and one reason only: because God choose them to be saved and not because of what they have done. "God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy" A final statement that a person cannot save themselves if ever there was one. There will be an obvious objection to this "That is not fair - if that is so what does it matter, God choses me or not" to which Paul responds and puts us finally in our place. "God is sovereign - who are you to question him" Folk do it all the time here but at the end of the day no one has a leg to stand on before God. He is after all...sovereign.
But there is a way to resolve it so that his sovereignty can be seen to be in face just and right and fair. A way that makes sense to us even if it is not laid out in the fashion we would like. On the basis of the overall argument in Romans we can conclude that no one will be in hell who didn't put themselves there. The person who objects to the apparent unfairness of Gods chosing who to save is faced with the fact that all will be chosen unless they reject the gospels attempt to save them
In this way all the glory and honour goes to him if we are saved - we are right to worship him for we had no right to it nor was there anything better in us than over another. We cannot boast in ourselves. And if we are lost then it is perfectly just that we be punished and the blame is all our own. God holiness, love, justice and wrath: attributes of him, are vindicated. Whatever our destination.
When a person asks: "Why didn't God do it this way that way or the other way instead of the way he did" they are faced with the answer "Gods way vindicates who he is perfectly - why do it another way if there is no flaw in the way he did it. This is about God vindicating himself - not about us. He is the centre of the universe - not us.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 08-04-2006 7:26 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 08-10-2006 3:56 AM iano has replied
 Message 30 by Larni, posted 08-11-2006 10:54 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 67 (338871)
08-10-2006 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
08-04-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Romans 1:18 - 3:20 "Why the gospel is needed by all men"
Can you hang on 'till next week Iano? Time is tight and I can't go through this in the way I would like 'till then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 08-04-2006 9:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 08-10-2006 5:22 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 29 of 67 (338875)
08-10-2006 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Larni
08-10-2006 3:56 AM


Re: Romans 1:18 - 3:20 "Why the gospel is needed by all men"
Hi Larni,
No sweat. I'm backing off on EvC generally but have no probs keeping this thread up. Take you time and I'll keep an eye out for you on it or pm me when you post, address listed in profile under interests
If there are decks to be cleared before getting into the next section then we might as well do that. The ride is about to get interesting so you won't get a chance again
Ian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 08-10-2006 3:56 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 30 of 67 (339169)
08-11-2006 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
08-04-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Romans 1:18 - 3:20 "Why the gospel is needed by all men"
Iano writes:
Ultimately a person is saved for one reason and one reason only: because God choose them to be saved and not because of what they have done.
This is where I get confused.
Iano writes:
On the basis of the overall argument in Romans we can conclude that no one will be in hell who didn't put themselves there.
This gives the implication that God choses who will be saved. It follows (unless I have it wrong) that this means God will not choose everyone.
Iano writes:
The person who objects to the apparent unfairness of Gods chosing who to save is faced with the fact that all will be chosen unless they reject the gospels attempt to save them.
But here it is implied that God offers salvation to everyone and it is our actions that prevent salvation.
Could we clear up my confusion before continue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by iano, posted 08-04-2006 9:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 08-11-2006 3:43 PM Larni has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024