Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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 46 of 67 (346096)
09-02-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Larni
09-02-2006 8:20 AM


Re: Romans 2. Dealing with the moralist, the self-righteous, the Religious (part 4)
See you then Larni...and remember: if you can't be good, have fun being bad...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Larni, posted 09-02-2006 8:20 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 47 of 67 (349584)
09-16-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by iano
09-01-2006 11:57 AM


Romans 3: Introduction
Welcome back Larni.
Hope the holiday was good and that you behaved yourself. If you didn't then don't worry...it will help understanding this next bit
It is necessary to cast a look back before embarking on this chapter in order to remind ourselves (by way of overview) what it is that Paul is attempting to achieve. The key starting point of the book is Romans 1:16-17. Pauls intent on writing is that they be established and fortified in their faith. And the means whereby he is going to do this is to explain to them what the gospel is and how it works. He has opened by summarising the gospel - the gospel in a nutshell as it were. He will proceed to unpack this and elaborate on this
quote:
16 (For) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
This is his good news and there is certainly no reason to be ashamed of it: a righteousness from God resulting in a mans salvation (from his sins) has been revealed in the gospel. Revealed in the very gospel explained in full in this letter. Being considered by God to be righteous is necessary in order for a man to stand before God. For God is righteous (holy) and can not be in the presence of sinners. It is not that a man has to generate his own righteousness in some fashion or other (as Paul will argue - he will in chapter 1 and 2 and beyond, demolish the idea that a man can work up his own righteousness). No, the righteousness a man needs in order to enter into a personal relationship with God comes TO a man FROM God BY (or along the highway of) a thing called faith. Just like this post comes TO you FROM me BY the vehicle of the Internet.
And we have seen that in order for news to be good there must be some need of it. "I have gotten a pay rise" is not good news if one is in no need of a pay rise. Its not worth mentioning. "I have been declared free from cancer" is not good news unless one suspected that cancer was present in ones body. Patently, in order for news about ones salvation to be considered good news a person must be aware of the need for salvation . And if the news about ones salvation is that God has supplied that which is required and that news is to be considered good, then a person must be aware that they cannot achieve this righteousness by themselves. And if they are not aware of these things and you are the bearer of this good news then it falls to you to prove their need of it to them. Before explaining this good news then he had first to explain the need. He must explain the bad news which currently applies to the man in question. He gets down to this business with the very next verse...
quote:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
NB: There are only two types of people who can be reading this argument of Pauls. If the person is a Christian (as defined by God naturally) then they are reading a retrospective on their own position prior to the good news being applied to them. It is good that they understand what their position was. They can be more thankful to God (like I was when I understood what had happened to me), they can too better explain to others their own need (as I attempt to do), they will be, as is Paul's intention, be established and fortified in their faith (especially when it comes to later things - such as it being impossible for a man, if once saved, to lose his salvation). A person who really understands how vital the gospel is to them will be far less likely to take the gospel for granted - they will pay fuller attention to all it has to say to them. We are dealing with chapters 1-9. We should have included chapters 10 and 11 too for the doctrinal, mechanical aspects continue up to that point. Chapters 12-16 are about application of what has been learned about ones position - doctrine needs to be applied and once Paul has explained doctrine he will then (12-16) go about showing how this knowledge is to be applied in a Christians life. "In the light of what we now know, how then should we live - how should we apply this knowledge" is the conclusion one should draw from the doctrinal aspects.
If the person is not a Christian however, they might well, on reading this, become convinced of their current position and need. Gods word is not just any old word. Gods spoke the world into existance - it has power. So, Paul speaks to the two possible categories of people in his letter: to Christians in order to establish them in their faith, to non-Christians, knowing that the word of God they are reading itself has the power to reveal the gospel to a persons heart. "Out of the overflow of the heart a man speaks" is the direction of things. A mans doing and saying stems from what is in his heart. Similarily, what a man exposed himself to goes into his heart. If he reads Pauls words, they enter first his intellect and then sink down into his heart. That is the way it works. We bandy "word of God" around alot, but any reflection on that should indicate(even in the realm of intellectual disbelief)that no small thing is being claimed. If the word of God then of vast significance it is - irrespective of what one bellieves.
In verse 1:18 Paul has made a universally applicable statement about mankind. 1:16-17 was his summary of the epistle at large. 1:18 is his summary of the first argument he will engage with within the whole. And his universal statement about mankind applies for all time. "Is being revealed" he says. This is the continous present tense. In whatever era a person reads this verse he can know that what "is being revealed" then is still being revealed now. God doesn't change from time to time. We saw then how it was he built up the argument in Romans 1. For the rest of chapter he concentrated on the unbelieving pagan Gentiles. He told us what God does in response to their ungodliness and wickedness (which tends towards suppressing the truth God reveals to all men through Creation and consciences). What God does is to hand men over to their sin so they become increasingly depraved. It follows that any resistance to depravity comes only through God holding a man from falling into it. Oh! how the moralists should blush! That is what Gods wraths response is to wickedness. We shall see shortly how Gods love makes use of this very fall into depravity which his release on man causes to happen.
Then in chapter 2 he turns on those who are nodding in agreement about what God does to these wicked Gentiles. He rounds on those who would think that, by their knowing about God, believing in God, acknowledging Gods existance and the holiness of his laws etc., they are somehow in a different position. He turns on their thinking that God will somehow view them in a different light than those filthy pagans. "You are no better than those Gentiles in fact" says Paul.
We saw too how this letter, written in the context of his day applies today as well. The 'Gentile barbarian' is the Atheist without a 'supernatural' god to worship (although he does worship gods all the same - money, power, science, popularity, etc.). Or the 'Gentile idolator', a Hindu perhaps, who worships a 'supernatural' but non-existant god. In his turning on the 'Jew' he turns today on the 'God-fearing' person - the person who believes in the one true God but who is in fact a person who is still guilty of the same ungodliness and wickedness as is the Gentile. That person, in his believing in God and taking comfort in that fact, overlooks the fact that "even the demons believe in God". Believing in God is fine in itself but it is not sufficient for salvation. This will always come as something of a shock for a person who is reliant on such belief. They can be expected to object to that notion. "Closer but by no means a cigar" is what Paul is telling them
Chapter 3 is split into 3 main sections and it so happens that the man-made segmentation we find in this chapter (for Paul did not write it with these segments) are put in a place appropriate to the structure of Pauls argment. This is not always the case.
Section 1:
quote:
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God....
Read through this first section yourself in your Bible: verses 1 thro' 8. Paul has to deal with the natural objection the Jew then (or Religious today) will make after hearing the argument he gave in chapter 2. "What are you saying Paul - that being a Jew (or a Catholic or an Evangelical) lends no advantage at all? That I might as well have been born into an atheistic society?" Whilst there is in fact no advantage in being a Jew in terms of it contributing to ones salvation there is yet advantage and Paul will deal with this objection by pointing out the actual advantages of being a Jew. He will point out that a persons failure to utilise this advantage renders it no less an advantage. Playing 11 against 9 is an advantage in soccer - but ones failure to capitalise on doesn't mean the advantage wasn't there in the first place. That is Pauls tack here. The Jews had Gods very own revealed word in their possession. Think of it: Gods very own word!! No small thing that. This the Gentiles didn't have. Throughout history God had revealed himself to the Jews in various ways - something he did not at all do for the Gentiles. The Jew had opportunity to know God and Gods requirement of them. They also had hope of a Messiah - someone who would save them from their sin. This is something which no Gentile could find hope in. The Gentiles could only hope in idols of his own manufacture thus any hope - no matter how firmly felt - could only be a false hope. That the Jews rebelled against God, that they perverted what he said into legalistic Religion. That they crucified the Messiah even - means not that they had not those advantages. They had. So Paul deals with the objection raised to the argument given in Chapter 2 in this way. He responds to "Is there no advantage in being a Jew" by giving them the manyfold advantages and privileges the Jew had/has. The Jew who has Pauls argument in chapter 2 and who is thinking straight will begin to realise that he blew all the advantages he had. His objection begins to crumble.
Section 2
quote:
9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written:
There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one."
Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.
The poison of vipers is on their lips.
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.
There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Paul now completes the demolition work. He turns to the Jews (or any God-based Religious') very own Old Testament, the very Word of God which they believe in and proceeds to give a series of verses from it to prove that what he has been saying in his argument is the same as what the Old Testament has always been telling the Jew. His being commissioned by God gives him authority to state that this use of scripture is not just his interpretation but Gods own statement about the situation revealed now more clearly. He is in fact carrying out a commentary on the Old Testament. One must wonder when people criticise folk for using commentaries in their study of the Bible. Paul is doing the same: giving argument and backing it up with scripture. Now the person listening might claim "Paul was not commissioned by God therefore he has not this authority". That is their choice. They can always disbelieve Paul. They can always get bogged down in the 'conflict' between Paul and Christ and that Paul was influenced by his legalistic background or other such nonsense.
At the end of this section of his argument he sums up his whole point about ALL men being under wrath and condemnation: Jew and Gentile alike. He underlines his point that all men are in need of this good news that he intends to elaborate on with a final statement about it.
quote:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
"Therefore"!! Not a verse out of the blue - no, a linking statement to that which he has said before. Read this as Paul saying "As a result of all I have said up to this point (from 1:18), I now conclude my argument with this final statement"
Gods wrath is being poured out on ALL the ungodliness and wickedness of ALL men - for ALL men break Gods holy laws: Jew and Gentile alike. Religious and irreligious alike. Then and today. The argument a man might have had then, that he obeys the law, is demolished by the Old Testament commentary on mans actual action. "You judge others don't you" said Paul at the start of Romans 2. "No one will be declared righteous by observing the law simply because no man does observe the law" he says in effect. Paul then tells us directly and for the first time, what the actual purpose of the law is. He says in effect: "the purpose of the law is not that you will be declared righteous by observing it - I have argued at length that no man does observe it - rather, the purpose of the law is to make you conscious that you are a sinner"
It's a terrific statement this. A vital one to grasp. Look around at the world: Religious or not - how many people think that observing law & morality is the way a person can be considered to have lived a good life? How many people say "if there is a God then he will be okay with me - I'm not such a bad person"? I have heard dozens upon dozens use this objection to the gospel. Complete subjective nonsense it is in fact. They might as well say "If there is a God then he will NOT be okay with me for I have NOT been a good person" but in their subjective notions about good and bad they inerrantly plump for letting themselves off the hook - surprise surprise. It is a universal phenomenon this. Paul has turned the worlds system of thought upside down in a couple of chapters. He will naturally elaborate further on this vital point. It is too important to do otherwise.
Section 3
quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 3:21! Remember this verse! He has finished his proof regarding the bad news that applies to all men and now he is embarking on an explanation of the good news that can negate and overcome this bad news. Finally, we get to the good news! But before we do, do take a moment to compare Romans 3:21 with Romans 1:16-17 Is it not saying the exact same thing? Take a look
quote:
16 (For) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
Paul's summarising of his theme in 1:16-17 has not been forgotten. At 3:21 it is being returned to - for that it his main objective in this letter. Yes, he had first to divert so to explain the bad news - that every man is under the wrath and condemnation of God because of his sin. This argument he has completed at 3:20. Not that he ignores the result of the proof given. No, he weaves that into his argument now. Righteousness is available to all men - Jew and Gentile alike - based not on their status as Jew or Gentile, an atheist or a Religious person but only by them believing (whatever that means..). For "all have sinned and fallen short of Gods glory". Jew and Gentile alike.
Larni, see if you're content with Pauls proof for the bad news which is applicable to all men by default. That all men at all times are (unless there is some good news to the contrary) under Gods wrath and condemnation due to their suppressing of truth and the fall into depravity which results from that. If so, then we can conclude that all men are in need of good news. If so, we can skip further elaboration on the first two sections of this chapter and move on to the third. The workings of the gospel commencing at 3:21. And that's all it is from now on in - the detailed workings and mechanisms of the gospel which gives a man the righteousness he is such desparate need of.
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 44 by iano, posted 09-01-2006 11:57 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Larni, posted 09-25-2006 8:15 AM iano has not replied
 Message 49 by iano, posted 09-25-2006 2:04 PM iano has replied

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


Message 49 of 67 (352116)
09-25-2006 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by iano
09-16-2006 12:00 PM


Re: Romans 3: 21 on (part 1)
quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
"But now"
Although verse 21 comes middle of a chapter is it apparent that Paul is beginning not only a whole new section of the chapter but a whole new section of his epistle. He has concluded at verse 3:20 with summation of his argument (which began at verse 1:18 as we have seen) that a certain bad news applies to all men, Gentile and Jew, Athiest and Religious alike. All men have fallen short of the glory of God and no one will be seen as righteous by attempting to adhere to the law.
He also introduced in this summation of his argument, introduced almost as an aside, the actual purpose of the law. Many think the purpose of the law is that by following it (or by trying to follow it) a man will somehow be seen as righteous by God. Paul has said not only that no man will be seen as such but goes further - he tells us the actual purpose God had in giving the law. Its purpose is to make a man conscience of sin (or make man conscious of the fact he is a sinner. Or to make a man conscious that he is unable to keep the law). The law was given so as to convince a man that no man will be seen as righteous due to his following of the law. How is a man to be convinced of this? Well he only has to look at his performance in the face of the law to realise his shortcoming before it. Paul will pick up on this again but it is worth nothing that when the apostle begins on a particular thread of argument he says things which have massive implications. So many are convinced that law adhering is the way they must go are they not?
And it does not matter whether this law is written down (as the Religious have it) or whether this law is the (same) law that arrives at a man through his conscience. Either way man falls short of it. The fact is that no man can keep the law of God because of the fact he is, like Adam, a sinner and a rebel. And sinners and rebels do, by nature, what sinners and rebels can be expected to do. In rebelling, men attempt, in a bewildering variety of ways, to circumvent the problem which the law presses home on him. A couple spring to mind:
- deny Gods law altogether. This is what the atheist does. If no God > then no Gods laws > then no Gods laws to keep. Bingo!! But being unable to totally rid themselves of God (for God does act through a mans conscience) they develop mutant variations of Gods standard. They retain little bits and shadows of the total and live by that mutation - calling it "my morality" or "the norms of society" or "the influence of good parenting" or whatever it is they suppose is required for good order. They cannot suppress Gods working on them altogether but in their suppression, they wriggle this way and that create any number of false god whom they are prepared to follow. And when the god doesn't suit? Well it can be modified so as to do so. Why is it that so many men see themselves as not very bad chaps at all. Is it because they are not very bad chaps or it is that the standard they apply to themselves ensures they cannot be other than not very bad chaps?
- deny that he has to keep ALL the law. This is what the 'triers' do - at EvC and around that whole world. They ignore that which says "a person who keeps the law but stumbles (or fails) over even the tiniest piece of it is guilty of breaking all of it". They believe God exists (but even the demons do that) and that he has laws. They see that they cannot keep these laws and so say to each other (as if by convincing themselves they convince God): "we don't have to keep the laws to the letter but we must do our very best to keep them - we must try with all our might then all will be well". Of course they cannot know whether they or anyone else has tried with all their might and so it is impossible for them to ever be sure they will be saved. Such Religious in the meantime, tend to be self-righteous and look down on those who aren't (to their own mind)trying their damndest. Paul had words for them in chapter 2. Jesus reserved his anger for them alone. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovahs Witness and many aspects of Protestantism do this. Religion is the lie that is very closest to the truth. Conceived in and hatched from the very bowels of satan. And it stinks as does its source.
- deny God, but switch to another lie of satan. Such men invent other 'spiritual gods', invent ceremony and sacraments which, if adhered to, followed and bowed to, will provide whatever the 'afterlife' they invent that god as providing. Hinduism, Buddhism, Confusionism (sic) etc spring to mind. The Israelite had no sooner come through the parted Red Sea when they set about making a golden calf to worship. That is not recorded for no reason - it is the nature of sinful, fallen man to do these things. Not even Gods chosen people could be relied upon. Not that God expected any different "There are none righteous - no not one" said God
Law, law, law - that is what all men are involved with keeping - in whatever manner they do so. Or they decide (like I did) not to give a toss at all about morality and Religion and the law. Their morals become those of an alley cat and they are abandoned by Gods wrath to act fully according to their sinful nature. Left to pervert themselves in vile manner. I'll tell you about it sometime.
Both categories are doomed (unless the gospel is applied to them) for their failure to keep Gods law. Either by ignoring it in total or trying to keep it but failing to. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. All sail in a boat leading to condemnation
quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
"But now".
Paul has been saying up to this point "I have given you the bad news about your actual condition, you Jew and you Gentile. Gods wrath is on you all as it is. If you are convinced of this then I have some good news for you to here
"But now..."
"This is something new, something different. I have been telling you how it is that God sees you and has been acting against you. But now.."
Paul is about to engage on explaining the complete nature of the good news that everyman ever born (bar one)is so desparately in need of. This righteousness that all men are in need of has been revealed, has been made known. Paul was writing this some few years after the time of Jesus' coming, death and resurrection. His but now refers to what was happening at his time - he lived in that very time and could say "but now". But the effect is the same for a man who is coming to dawning awareness this very day. "But now" the apostle says to him too. "I have good news for you too - you who have been convinced by my first argument. Convinced that it applies to you my reader"
His first point is that this whole event of Jesus death and resurrection was the very plan of God: a means by which he intended so as to provide for a all mens righteousness. IOW: God would be the one to provide righteousness for a man rather than a man having to do so. He did this because he knew a man could not. IOW: the righteousness that Jesus 'obtained' by doing what he did is made available to man by God.
"But now" Paul says. It is Gods way of salvation that man (naked and hiding behind a whatever kind of fig leaf he has managed to conceive for himself in his shame) be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Not that a man is actually righteous - for he is not and cannot make himself so. So God, as it is pictured, puts a robe of righteousness around a sinful man and when God looks at a man so clothed all he sees is that man as righteous. The mans sin might be forgiven - that is one aspect. A negative benefit. But he needs more - he must be seen as positively righteous. Upstanding, good, holy, incapable of sin.
Look at the parable of the Wedding feast which Jesus himself gave us. It says exactly the same thing: Matthew 22
quote:
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. (the 'invited' refers to Gods chosen people, the Jews)
4"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
5"But they paid no attention and went off ” one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them (the historical fate of many of Gods prophets killed by the Jews). 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. (Gods wrath came to be in 66AD with the sacking of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews)
8"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, (the gentiles: note the invite is not law-adhering related) and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. (God looks at a man at Judgement. If not clothed in Christs righteousness then he has no place in the kingdom of God) 12'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. (there were bad people there as well as good - but they had wedding clothes on bad though they were. This mans problem wasn't that he was bad - he just hadn't got wedding clothes)
13"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Hell)
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen." (a snapshot of predestination again - God wants all to come but few are chosen. If a person does not reject Gods offer then they will be chosen)
"But now" This is a righteousness obtained APART from adhering to law. God has planned that this righteousness could be possible for man in the first place. And having conceived of, planned and executed its very existance, he then made it available and it is his desire that all men receive it. The most famous verse in the Bible: John 3:16 says this very thing that Paul speak of.
"For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son so that whomsoever would believe on him would not die but would have eternal life"
And the means of delivery of this righteousness, delivery of it FROM God TO man is not as so many think it - through observing and obeying the law. No! it is not given through such obedience (for if it were no one could have it as Paul has made plain) It is, in fact, given a man by means of this thing called faith. Faith - as we have seen from the nigh-on identical statement at Romans 1:16/17 - is the medium down along which God sends a man this righteousness. Faith is the channel or the electrical wires or the highway - picture it as you will through which man receives Gods righteousness as a robe to wear. But now Paul clarifies, even more precisely, the nature of this faith. It is faith in Jesus Christ. This is not any old highway - it is a very specific one with very specific characteristics. Faith in what Jesus Christ achieved for you.
Sin must be punished, for it is an unchangeable attribute of God that he express wrath against sin. It is not a thing which he can chose to do or not do. It is central to his nature. He can delay expression in his patience and forebearing. But that is all. He expresses wrath against sin now only in partial fashion, in order that his wrath can be used to help save a man. He does so because "he is patient - not willing or wanting that any should perish but that all would come to repenance".
But the time will come when time itself is wrapped up and eternity is ushered in. Then will come the full expression of the fury of his wrath against sin. And that fury will come upon whosoever it is that bears sin.
God, in expression of another intrinsic attribute of his, love, sacrificed his son. The Christ. Christ bore the brunt of this furious wrath against sin in the place of others. God, in an act of love, took mans sin from man, placed them fully on Christ and let his wrath express itself against the Christ, the bearer of our sin. A person who expresses faith in Jesus Christ is saying this much at least:
"I am a hopeless sinner and my sin deserves punishment - for it breaks Gods holy law. God placed my sin on him and it was punished in him and not me. Because of that my debt to Gods wrath has been paid"
Now it might seem as if a man saying this sounds very much like he has made some decision and in so doing has arrived this conclusion himself. "I have considered and decided that this is my decision about these matters" But we shall be seeing that nothing involving salvation can come from a man. Nothing at all. Man plays no part in his own salvation. He certainly cannot arrive at this conclusion about Christ by himself but requires that God bring him to that conclusion. We have seen a little of that in discussing pre-destination which we will come to again. Suffice to say for now - man having any part in even this expression of faith is bogus and that idea will be shown by Paul to be bogus.
For faith in Christs atoning sacrifice on his behalf is something that God initialises in a man. Or if we take the highway analogy, it is a line of sight that God constructs between himself and a man. When God so constructs and the highway connect to a man then man sees. He can only express that which he now sees when God enables him to see. And when the man sees it and expresses what I said he expresses above, he is only expressing what God put before his eyes. "Foodmixer... set of golfclubs.... cuddly toy" (if your old enough to remember the Generation Game). If nothing comes along the conveyor belt then the man names nothing off.
Christ died for the sins of the world. In the sense that he took on the sins of the world and was punished for the sins of the world. But this does not mean he paid the price for everymans sin. No. He paid then whatever was necessary for whatever portion of the world who God will finally bring to that point of belief. If the whole world came to believe then Christ paid for those sins. If only one person believed then Christ paid for that mans sin. Christ came to seek and save the lost (all men) but not all the lost will be saved. Therefore Christ actually came, in practical effect, for those that would end up being saved. Similarily he paid for the sins of the world (all men) but not all men will be saved. Therefore he paid the price for the sin of those men who would be saved. And Paul says as much.
quote:
This righteousness FROM God comes THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ TO ALL who believe.
from > through (via) > to all who.
There is a condition for this righteousness coming to a man: a man MUST believe. If he does then he will have this faith, this highway built up between him and God. His pc will have a broadband connection to Gods server and the data of righteousness (initially - much more will flow down it subsequently) will flow down that broadband highway.
"To all who believe" says Paul "Fine" says the legalist. "It used to be that there was all this Old Testament sacrifice that a man had to do. There were all these laws stacked upon laws. 'Thou shalt not this, thou shalt do that'. But then Jesus came and said "All that is done away with - now you only have to believe and you will be saved" I can buy that. Much more modern that".
Except that this gospel is that salvation comes to a man apart from any and all requirment of law. Any condition that must be fulfilled by a man is a law, a rule, a requirement of him. That is NOT Gods gospel. For even the belief a man must have is something that must be established in a man by God. Man is not capable of believing this under his own steam.
That is both the great and terrifying thing about this gospel. It is all of God. Great because it means that if applied to a man it is certain to succeed in its task. God cannot fail to save a man once he decides to do so. And it is terrifying in that it removes any possible action by a man as contributing to the proceedings. This gospel says that man is totally reliant on God to save him. He cannot contribute himself to his own salvation one jot - no good he does matters, no morality he adheres counts in the least. Giving money to the poor helps him not. He can go to church every Sunday of his life and flog and torture himself for his sinfulness. None of these things change the fact that he is seen as an unrighteous and wicked sinner in Gods sight and without the righteousness that God has for him - to Hell he will surely go. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Falling short is falling short. If you want to jump across a canyon it matters not whether you get 1/2 way or 2/3 way or 555/556ths of the way across - if you fall short then down into the abyss you will fall. And if a man finds himself terrified (or even troubled) by those facts about himself then that is a good thing - for a man who is terrified thus believes the gospel he has been reading up to now. He should keep on reading...
quote:
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
Good old Paul! He never forgets referring to the fact that this way of salvation is not something new. He says that the Law and the Prophets testify to this way of salvation being the way it was always. The Old Testament is littered with it. Note here the capital L in Law. This is not the law ("thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" and "love they neighbour as thyself"). The Law is the first 5 books of the Old Testament. Books written by Moses. And in those we see foreshadowings of Gods way and means of salvation.
Way back in Genesis, God says regarding Eve's seed: that the serpent will bruise his heel and he will crush its head. The crucifixion was the satan bruising Jesus. Jesus will crush satan finally.
Then we have Exodus where the spotless lamb (compare to Jesus: the lamb of(or from) God) is slaughtered and the daubing of its blood over the door lintels ensured the angel of death would passover the households covered by sacrificial blood. Then the Israelites were led out of captivity (as the saved are freed from under the slavery to sin - something which Paul covers in this epistle)
The psalms are full of prophecy and one of the clearest pictures is Psalm 22 where the crucifixion is described in stunning detail - long before that form of execution was invented.
Isaiah the prophet talks in chapter 7 about a virgin having a son
There are untold foreshadowings in the Old Testament of this way of righteousness of Gods. In fact, God had this plan ready before the beginning of the world. Whereas it was hidden in the Old Testament it has now, says Paul, been revealed in full to the world: Christ and him crucified is that way.
"I am the way and the truth and the light" said Jesus "nobody come to the father except through me"
Paul will pick up on a keystone Old Testament example of Gods way of righteousness in Chapter 4. He will examine the case of Abraham and how it came to be that Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel, came to be considered righteous before God. This will form Pauls proof that a persons righteousness comes as it has always come: through faith, through belief.
quote:
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus
He reminds us, having just come from this argument that the distinction between Jew and Gentile is a spurious one. All have sinned. And then this line: note the words carefully. It applies to those who believe as Paul has said. Whoever they are. Those fortunate and privileges people are:
Justified (to be declared as righteous by God in his sight)..
freely (without cost or condition pressing on the man and without restraint or any holding back on Gods part)...
by his grace (it is all due to God grace - nothing of man indicated)..
through (by means of, via)...
the redemption (the having been redeemed, the due ransom having being paid)...
that came (to the redeemed person)...
by (by means of what, via that which)...
Christ Jesus (achieved on calvarys cross)
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 47 by iano, posted 09-16-2006 12:00 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 10:26 AM iano has replied
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 10-18-2006 10:03 AM iano has replied

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


Message 50 of 67 (352350)
09-26-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
09-25-2006 2:04 PM


Re: Romans 3: 24 to end of chapter (part 2)
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Justified freely by (or on account of) his grace. My thesaurus brings up words for grace (a noun in this context) such as: favour, mercy, charity, benevolence, clemency, leniency and the like. Gratis is a word which derives from grace too and that sense of something being freely given whilst finding no merit in the recipient of grace in built in to the notion of the other words which describe grace.
This free-giftedness idea is a common one both in the NT and in this epistle. It is inseparable from any decription regarding the workings of Gods salvation. Many will reject this but they do so with verses plucked here and there. There is no contextual case made as Paul is and will make. It is man foisting his preconceived ideas into scripture only. Next time someone says we must work or contribute to our salvation ask him for the continuous argument - not what he infers must be the case. Point him to Paul in Romans
We see often that Paul puts things both in the negative and the positive. The idea that we can do nothing to earn our own salvation is describing things in the negative way (he will talk at the end of this chapter how it is that no man can boast of his being saved). Describing salvation as a gift from God puts things in the positive. We can do nothing, God does everything. Adding negative and positive gives us a clear view. The person who clings to "we must accept the gift" in the hope that this will allow them a way to contribute shows nothing but their own desparation to twist things one final time. Their refusal of grace.
We see in this section too that the work is done by God. We have been told the righteousness we need comes from God. And here we see a little of how God achieved it. He presented his own son as a sacrifice for the sin that must be punished according to Gods own intrinsic sense of justice and wrath against sin - as well as his love in so conceiving such a salvation. He was not obliged to save anyone. It is truly amazing when one grasps it. God knowing what his wrath must do devising a method which satisfies his love but does not deflect his wrath against sin. God stepping out of eternity into time to be treated so shabbily and to be cursed and spat upon and to be finally nailed to tree. A wonder that. Yet the solution is completely consistent and in harmony with all aspects of his own nature.
We got more insight into this faith thing recently: faith in Jesus Christ. We now look at from a slightly different angle. Not faith that Jesus Christ existed or that he said some wonderful things. It is something more specific than that: faith in his blood. This means faith in what sacrificial blood achieves in Gods order of things. God said that death would Passover the Israelite houses daubed in a spotless lambs blood. If he says so then it is so - we don’t need to look to deeply as to why that is. If he says us being (spiritually) daubed in Jesus blood means death will pass over us then it is also the case. It certainly fits with his way of doing things. The faith that God must put into a person to be saved will enable them to see that this is the case. When he installs this faith then they will believe that Jesus’ sacrifice frees them from the guilt and punishment that their sin deserved. It is not choice - it is inevitable. Once God initiates final salvation then a man is sure to be saved.
How does God demonstrate his justice? Well he satisfies his own justice which says sin must be punished. His being justice cannot simply forget the sin which is committed. But he can and has, as I have already said, postponed the court sitting in order to enable people to be saved from their sin. Finally his justice is brought to bear either on Jesus or on the people who remain in possession of their own sin. All sin will be dealt with and his justice is demonstrated to be perfect. And in doing what he did he can be the justifier of those who have faith. Here again we see that salvation is of God. There will be no aspect that relies on man. God is the person who does the work (legal in this case) of making people just in his sight. He justifies people. They do not justify themselves
Another little thing which could be missed which points again to how there is so much to be taken from each sentence. The idea that "He did this to demonstrate his justice" God doesn't have to demonstrate justice - he is sovereign and can do what he likes. But he choses to demonstrate to all that he is just. He lays his cards on the table for all to see. No one will be able to accuse God of twisting his own law, his own justice. That is the saddest thing about the damned. A damned person will agree with God that they deserve eternal damnation. They will see that he played fair all the way down the line and it was their own rejection that brought his wrath upon their heads. They will blame themselves for their condition not God. They will agree that God acted justly with them even whilst hating him. That is one of the horrors of hell - a person eternally hating themselves because of what they have done to themselves. Similar to this "every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" All will agree that he is Lord, the damned too even as they depart for hell. Even the demons believe in God...
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
And because salvation comes only through Gods activity any sense of a man being able to boast about his being saved is excluded. It is a foolish Christian indeed who looks down in haughty manner and those who are not (yet) saved. Firstly he does not know that they will not be saved at some point. Secondly he forgets he was once in that position himself. Thirdly he forgets that it wasn’t him that put him in this position in the first place. This is not to confuse a Christian railing against the thinking of the atheist or the Religious. A Christian may do this because they see satan at work in that persons life holding them blind and captive in their sin. Their anger is a righteous one. But to gloat and delight on ones position is an affront to God. Because boasting is excluded. If a man had contributed to any aspect of his salvation then he would have reason to boast of it. “I made the decision - it is because I decided for God that I am saved. And you, wicked sinner chose not so you are damned. How I rejoice in my decision” says the boaster. But this is excluded.
Paul in disallowing boasting gives a negative proof that salvation in all its aspects is a work of God alone. His providing Jesus as sin bearer, his being patient whilst we are still sinners. His calling us through conscience/his creation/his Word/his evangelists - not wanting that any should perish. His working towards opening a mans eyes to truth, his toleratin the ridicule and sin and bile that sinners throw at him whilst he desperately attempts to save them. You see some of the things said of God around here. They offend me in the sense that I look at what he is attempting to do in his love and am offended on his behalf. "If only you could see that you are hacking at the hand that reaches out to save you" I want to scream. But of course I cannot (or try not to) For I was once that very man myself.
Salvation is all of God. All the way to his finally calling the man who has not rejected him in his heart and in so calling, giving the man faith and enabling him to believe. And as soon as a man does that then God justifies him, declares him legally innocent of any sin and wraps a robe of righteousness around his shoulders. And then he throws a party in heaven - his son was lost but now he is found.
Paul finishes off this chapter not departing from the context he began it with - dealing with objections from the Jew/Religious mindset that would baulk at the idea that salvation was open to all the filth of the world and that it has nothing at all to do with a mans law abiding. Men are convinced that if they live a good life then God will be okay with them. But God justifies every man alike - irrespective of his worldly status, irrespective of his actions: kings and peasants, rich and poor, the 'moral' and the immoral - "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
Thank God that God is no respecter of persons! Thank God that he sees all men as vile sinners irrespective of how they see themselves yet seeks to save them all. And Gods way of salvation does not, as we have seen, bypass or circumvent or corrupt the law he has given. The law is upheld by men who are saved by faith because the law was satisfied with Gods way of doing things. It was broken of course. But the penalty was paid in full for men who have this faith. The law is and can be seen to be completely upheld by his way of salvation.
We should remember that this latter section of chapter 3 is the opening of a new section: the gospel proper - so Paul has touched on some major themes in it which he will draw out further.
- no one will be declared righteous by observing the law
- a man being justified is a man who is declared innocent and is seen as righteous by God
- the purpose of the law is to make a man conscience of his sin
- salvation is something provided TO a man BY God THROUGH faith
- salvation is a gift not something a man earns - no boasting
- faith is specific: faith that Jesus Christ paid for a mans sin
(patently in order to have this faith a man must be convinced he is a sinner (see back to the purpose if the law)
- Gods way of salvation is consistantly legal and just: no loose ends there
- God is delaying the time when sin is punished in full. Not only is he graceful but he is also patient. We see personal attributes of God here
- salvation is open to each and every man. God has no favorites
Not all items will receive in depth further treatment. Many are woven in as we go. The next major theme is further explanation regarding a central item: justification by faith. That’s chapter 4 territory. In going there we should not forget what has been seen to date. The themes and points made get woven into the subsequent argument and in not forgetting them we are helped to see better how the whole of the epistle stitches together into one whole argument.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 09-25-2006 2:04 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 10-02-2006 10:12 AM iano has replied
 Message 53 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 1:38 PM iano has replied
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 6:46 AM iano has replied

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


Message 52 of 67 (353593)
10-02-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Larni
10-02-2006 10:12 AM


Re: Romans 3: 24 to end of chapter (part 2)
No worries JP - its a slow burner and it gives me time to think things through. Its good for me to read around and think about the gospel myself so I'm benefiting here. If you are too then its win-win

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Larni, posted 10-02-2006 10:12 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 53 of 67 (353917)
10-03-2006 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by iano
09-26-2006 10:26 AM


Romans 4: Justification by faith (part 1)
quote:
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about”but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
We saw a shift in the apostles argument at Romans 3:21 where he introduces how it actually is that a person comes to be considered as righteous by God. Paul has proven that righteousness does NOT come to a man by his obeying the law (“therefore(he concludes at the end of that argument) by the deeds of the law shall no man be seen as righteous in his sight”). Instead, he says that (Christs) righteousness comes to a man, from God, through the medium of faith.
There is a transaction latent in the from/to description. And action is required in order to carry out a transaction. The verb used to describe this transaction activity, which results in righteousness being delivered to man, is “justify”. God (Paul has said in chapter 3) justifies a man. His action thus. We may picture righteousness as wealth that a man needs. God transfers wealth that he has made available (by his providing of the sacrificed sacrifice, the Christ)into the mans spiritual bank account. All men are born spiritually bankrupt and if found to be so (unrighteous) on the day of Accounting (Judgment) then out of business they shall be put (Hell). Elsewhere, a justified man is described as having been “robed in Christs righteousness” - God robes (verb) a man with righteousness. That is a symbolic way to describe the more legalistic notion of justification (the act of justifying). In fact, Pauls language operates in the area of legalistic, forensic, mechanical and it is worth seeing things from that angle. All the pieces must fit, the balance sheet must balance. God is just (his actions are lawful) and the justifier of (carries out a legally binding action on) all who believe.
quote:
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about”but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a]
“What shall we say then..."
"Come, let us reason all this out" says Paul in effect. "I have been saying much - how does it all fit together thus far?" He has arrived at certain conclusions and, not forgetting what those are, he turns once again to show that this way of salvation is not something new: no, it has always been Gods way of salvation. In Pauls time, the charge could have been levelled that “the Way” (as Christianity was called then) was a mere sect. You can imagine it can't you? If some embryonic little group were to stand up now and say “Christianity isn’t the fullest revelation - we have this new revelation from God” then they would be considered a sect - would they not? Just like Mormons and Jehovahs Witness are considered sects. And in evaluating the claims of Mormonism is Jehovahs Witness-ism one can do the same as Paul - evaluate with regard to scripture. These two sects fall at the first fence in that they will, if probed a little, come up with the very works based salvation that Paul (their scripture includes him) is demolishing. If they have new revelation that you can compare it to his writings - him stating then that he has new revelation. You will find total mush in comparison and can conclude what you should conclude.
So. Alongside the testimony that he himself is God-commissioned to explain this gospel he uses what would have been accepted scripture then, to back his argument up. In our day this is of use also: for if shown that this ancient OT fits with what is being said in the less ancient NT then the inner coherency may convince a man that there is more to this than might meet his doubtful eye. We have seen parallels between the Passover lamb and Christ. We will see reference to Adam shortly. For now we get to look at how what happened to OT Abraham is what happens to NT men.
Paul refers to a situation way back in the Old Testament (Genesis 15). To a situation that arose between a man called Abram and God. Now lineage is of vital import in the Bible and we see the story of this man Abram who has no child to carry on his line - a serious and upsetting matter for him. Abram is very old at this stage, as is his barren wife Sarah. But God tells Abram that his wife Sarah will conceive a child and he will have his heir.
And Abram believed God. He believed that God was telling him the truth and that what God said would happen would in fact happen. He didn’t look at his old body nor that of his barren wife and say “it cannot be”. He took God at his word. And as a result of that God did something. Abrams (renamed Abraham) expression of belief and trust in God was Gods criteria for declaring him righteous. For God has decided that this is what constitutes a just way of transferring righteousness to a man. It could have been something else - it could have been that God would credit righteousness to the account of a man who kept all the law (in which case no man could have been saved)But he chose, thank God, to do it this way - in order that all men could be saved.
We have talked already around the area of predestination and how it is that God does all the work - not only leading a man to the point of salvation but applying salvation to him too. And how too, it is a gift from God, a gift being something that doesn’t come with conditions to be fulfilled by the receiver. Even the notion of a man having to accept the gift can be spun to infer there is some onus on the man. That he has to do some work. This story of Abraham illustrates some of the things going on which align with what I have said elsewhere about salvation being totally and completely of God. Every last bit of it. That man can take none of the credit at all. That a man cannot boast in anything he has done.
Firstly: This point at which righteousness is credited to a man is the very point of application of salvation. And at this cliff edge we see God interacting directly with Abraham through a vision (not in empirically demonstrable fashion so many would insist on having before they would believe). Due to Gods interacting with Abraham there can be no talk of “blind faith” - a situation where God is so remote that a man must take a leap into the dark - for that would be irrational. No, God is in close and making a promise. So it is for any person when they are brought to this point of conversion. They speak to or cry to God - believing the promise he has delivered to them in whichever way he delivers it to them. And God in response to that belief (which he enabled in them by his action) credits that person with righteousness.
Now this might be seen be some as unnecessary dancing around. “Why doesn’t God just credit the righteousness to everyone and get it over with” they say. But the thing is that a man must be able to refuse to be brought to this point. Gods way of salvation must allow for this. And if a man refuses to be brought, refuses to be convinced then he will never be brought to the point of believing Gods promise. And without that belief, God cannot apply righteousness to their account. God will not force someone to be saved.
Secondly: It is important that we see that Abraham had a need. In his case, the lack of continuing lineage for want of an heir signifies a death of sorts. Abraham is very old, Sarah too is very old and barren. And prior to God promising what he promised, Abrahams line is as good as dead. For such a man, this is reason to despair. And it is God who has brought Abraham to this point - knowing what would awaken despair in such a man. Could he not simply withold the God-given blessing of children from him knowing where this would lead Abraham? He is not obliged to gift us children afterall. However he did it, Abraham is brought (by God) to a place whereby he has no choice but to believe God if he is to have any hope of his life(line) living forever.
“If you want your life(line) to continue indefinitely” says God in effect “then you must believe me - I am the only one now who can achieve this for you”.
Abraham, due to his desperate need believed God. And it is the same for every person who is brought to this point by God: “You have no other choice regarding a solution to your . . . (insert own desperate need here). Only I can solve it for you and you must believe that I can”.
And when any man believes God, then God - as he did with Abraham - credits righteousness to that man. Man cannot bring himself to that point: God must do so. And God will do so, so long as he is not prevented by a mans rejection of his acting towards this goal. And when his need is fully revealed to a man he will believe Gods promise - however that is revealed to him personally.
I gave the analogy somewhere of this being similar to a rubber duck being run over by a truck and squeaking as a result of that. The rubber duck squeaks purely as a result of the action of the truck running over it. So it is with an expression of believe (or faith). It is pressed out of a man by the fact of his great need being revealed to him by God. Look too, at that video where the first plane struck WTC #1. "Holy Shit...HOLY SHIT!!" says one mouth agape observer. That expression was pressed out of him by something acting upon him - he didn't chose to express that - it was pressed out of him. Its that kind of thing. It is Gods action on a man which will press "I believe" out of him.
Now the needs of a man can vary wildly: in Abrahams case is was having no heir. For the thief on the cross it was impending death. It can be an addiction, it can be depression, it can be purposelessness, it can be sickness, it can be despair in an unhappy marriage, it can be worry at approaching old age, it can be the cry to God expressed out of the occupant of a car which has run over the side of a cliff. It matters not what the headline need is because that same principle applies to everyone: man in desperate need for life and he needs to be turned (by God) so as to see that God is the only one who can save him from his plight.
And it all goes back to Adam in the garden. He was, in his choosing as he did, rejecting his being dependant on God for everything he was and had. He figured that in being like God (the serpents lie)he could live independantly of God and so chose to do so. How wrong he was! The proper and rightful order which sees Creator God above created man was rejected and man went, prodigal son-like, his own way. Its the same today for every man. Existing in that same broken state of affairs "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
All that has to happen for a man to be restored into full relationship is for that man to recognise that he is totally dependant on God for everything. Not a little bit, not a nod to God on church on Sundays. Totally and in every way. When he does see that and believes God when he tells him that he is surely lost without Gods restoring him then God will restore him.
Like the prodigal sons father slaughtering the fatted calf on his turning back to his father, God opens the floodgates and gives a man back everything that was lost: righteousness, eternal life, relationship with God, sins forgiven - the works.
It's like being born again ...
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 10:26 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 7:05 AM iano has replied
 Message 64 by iano, posted 10-24-2006 1:12 PM iano has replied

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


Message 55 of 67 (357251)
10-18-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Larni
10-18-2006 10:03 AM


Re: Romans 3: 21 on (part 1)
iano writes:
God cannot fail to save a man once he decides to do so.
Larni writes:
This is a stumbling block for me. Where for lay the definition for God making the 'choice'?
Welcome back Larni!
I'm not sure I understand the question exactly.
There can be expected to be stumbling blocks - nothing is more certain or natural. God is far more aware of our condition than we are - he knows that by nature we are sinners and that sinners, unless acted up by him, will tend to only move further away from him, they will find evermore stumbling blocks to trip over. God meets us where we are at - not where we think we should be at. My hope is that at least some of the common objections will be dealt with in the course of this thread. For instance: one objection which can be at least begin to be cast aside (barring some equally detailed and continuous argument elsewhere in the Bible) is the idea that a man must obey the law in order to be saved. That salvation is NOT gained by adhering to the law is something we have clearly seen. And this is hugely significant stuff. For if someone was convinced or was beginning to be convinced that this was the message of Romans to date (and the Bible in general, we would find if we expanded the search) then huge swathes of Religion could be simply cast aside. That teachings of that mighty giant, the Roman Catholic Church are demolished by this section of Romans alone.
And if you have begun to be convinced of that (whilst not being convinced of the whole thing) then focus on only that for a moment. For it is not only RC teaching which is demolished but also the inate thinking of anyone of any persuasion who is inclined to suppose that God expects that they "get their act together" in order that they ensure/enable/contribute to, their salvation. And this from step-by-step argument spanning a couple of pages of Bible. That is power!
But not every possible objection will be dealt with in Romans. One would need to look a little further both in the Bible and into ones own heart in order for all stumbling blocks to be dealt with. That is the task of the gospel itself (not an explanation of the gospel - which is what Romans 1-9 is about). Suffice to say, if we got from 1-9 (and possibly up to 11 - which brings us to the very end of the doctrinal element of Romans) then there would be an excellent framework in position for other stumbling blocks to be addressed. Romans is core material onto which you can hang the rest. God willing we would get at least this skeleton completed.
In Chapter 9 we will come across the following piece of scripture. The general heading of the passage in the NIV is "Gods sovereign choice" Now this is a man-made heading: inserted by people who have analysed the passage and condensed its theme for us. We don't have to take those headings as scriptural but are allowed to decide for ourselves. In the vein of this main heading however: "Gods sovereign choice", Paul writes:
quote:
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy
Lets face that we are leaping forward a little here. Pauls argument is continuous and at this point in Romans 9 he will have established all sorts of things which make this point a fair one to make. The incremental step he introduces here will nestle in nicely given all the other incremental steps he has taken in arriving at this point.
Given the limitations involved in jumping ahead - but assuming the context of the epistle (which is all about how and on whom Gods plan of salvation works) to be the same, a plain reading tells us that:
a man is saved only because God choses to save him.
Patently man can try as hard as he likes but unless God choses to save him then his efforts are in vain (consider the many works-based gospels in the light of even this verse). And God being God, nothing can stand in his way if he choses to do something. That much is simple enough. God is sovereign and can do what he likes and so long as it is consistant with his own sense of just-ness then any action he takes is just. God defines what is just and what is not. Reading around at EvC will demonstrate how often this basic common sense is missed. Sinful man regularily questions Gods right to do as he pleases. "How dare God..." they say - as if their opinion counted before God. As if their sense of justice is the one that God must adhere to. Like its that crazy.
Perhaps then your question has really to do with why God choses to apply the gospel to some and not others. Now Romans 1-9 is not the complete Bible. It has a particular narrow focus. But it is a skeleton on which we can hang everything else. We have or will se that Romans 1-9 gives us insight into elements such as:
- how Gods way of salvation is just (ie: is consistant with his operating only justly: never bending justice, never showing favoritism, never bypassing what his being just demands)
- how it is that God is the one who brings a person to the point of being saved, and having been placed in front of a freight train of salvation ensures they will inevitably be splatted by it. Once he acts to save then everything they need to be finally saved will occur as certainly as being hit by a freight train results in being splatted! No boasting is possible if he does everything:
a) positioning us on front of the freight train
b) splatting us with the freight train.
- how it is he lets a person fall into increasing sinfulness by withholding that which would prevent a man sinning (in his just and righteous wrath against sin. His withholding of the call to goodness releases us or "gives us over" to the power of sin - as we have seen in Romans 1). But in his love using the subsequent law breaking of ours in an attempt to drive us in the direction he dearly wants us to go in. Do you remember his conclusion in Chapter 3. A stunning comment on the actual purpose of the law. Completely counter-intuitive.
quote:
20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
- how it is that, having brought them to a certain point: their being convinced that they are sinners, it is certain that they will cry out to him for mercy. A heartfelt conviction that one is a sinner before God will automatically result in the seeing of a need for his being merciful towards them. All the old fig leaves: pride, self-sufficiency, intellectual argument etc will evaporate and a man is left defenceless before a God who promises only wrath against sin. The need is so immense that a man will surely cry out for mercy. A cry which God promises to respond to with mercy.
- And how this satisfies Gods plan. A plan whose aim is to restore fallen mankind back into the perfect relationship that existed before it was destroyed by mans sin. What God requires to happen to a man in order to restore a man is for a man to accept mans proper place in that relationship. To accept the divine order of things: God on the throne - not man on the throne. Man subject to God. But the relationship is not master/slave nor boss/employee. No: it is father/son. That the only way for a man to accept this involves his need being made clear to him - perhaps very painfully - is just the way it is. That is the level of the rebellion that exists. The emnity that exists. An indication of just how far we have fallen. You see it at EvC all the time: God cursed, God spat at, God ridiculed, God mocked. Look at the cross...it is the very same thing.
Your question perhaps?
What we do not seem to be able to see directly in Romans is the criteria for God choosing to apply salvation to some and not others. What we do know is that the concept of 'choosing' involves having a reason to chose this and not that. I choose pears over apples because I prefer the taste and texture of pears to apples. Choice involves: reason for, criteria, because etc. Whilst not directly stated I think we may well arrive at the point of seeing how there is only one criteria/reason/because involved in Gods choosing to apply/not apply salvation to a person. We would be in a better position to see it were we near an end of this study. But consider this for now
I think it could be made abundantly clear that God attempts to draw all men to himself:
"came to seek and save the lost" - that means all for all are born lost.
"For God so loved the world he gave his only son so that (in order that) whomsoever believes in him will not die but will have eternal life". The world: that means all.
"will send the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and righteousness and judgement" The world: that means everybody.
There are hundreds of verses which bring out this same point. God seeks to save all. He seeks to bring every person to the point of crying out to him (in whatever form that takes - it's as individual as we are). And the only way a person will not be brought to that point (and thus call out and thus be saved) is rejecting Gods attempt to bring them to that point. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs but the eggs (mankind) can refuse to be broken. No broken eggs no omelette.
Do you remember this verse from Romans 8?
quote:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified
The bit of interest here is Gods call. Its called "the irresistable call" because once it is issued then a man will be saved. This is the final point where a man who has been drawn in close by Gods general, drawing call has the final push applied to him. What does this call entail? Well, all the bits in the puzzle which have been so painstakingly laid (painful for both God and man) are finally assembled into a clear picture. The man finally sees himself for what he is: a total sinner before God, a rebel and enemy of God. Finally convinced he calls out to God for mercy and God responds with mercy and the cascade of salvation commences. The main elements Paul lists above:
the man justified (declared righteous in Gods sight)
the man is glorified (stood up in eternity, clothed in Christs righteousness and able to be in the presence of a holy God)
If that call then all the rest follow - they are certain to happen because they have (in the eternal realm) already happened. Patently however, a man who rejects Gods drawing him to this point can never reach the point of standing at the edge of salvation awaiting the final push. God cannot push someone over the edge who is not at the edge. Rejection of Gods attempt is the only thing that can prevent this happening.
And that is Gods criteria for chosing: "has the person rejected my attempt to draw them so that I can call them or have they not rejected?" That is why God choses not to save some. Because he cannot do so and be just at the same time. And God cannot not be just. He cannot be who he is not, nor act in a way contrary to who he is. That a person be damned is of no consequence compared to God being God. If a person was saved unjustly then God would be acting unjustly and would not be God anymore. Not any old thing is possible with God - although some are want to suppose so. His justness will not allow him to save a man against a mans express wishes. He gave a man an ability to express a rejection of Him and he cannot take it back and man still be man.
Nor can God reveal himself to a man before a man is prepared (by God) to accept God as God and himself as only man - otherwise he will interfere with a mans freedom to reject God. God has found a way to justly save man without revealing himself to man until that man is saved. And found a way to justly condemn a man for refusing him without revealing himself to man until the time of condemnation. It is a finely balanced thing - and God balances it perfectly.
Gods criteria for chosing then? Mans rejection of him or not. See the whole thing come a full circle. Adam chose against God. Gods purpose thereafter is to bring man back to choosing for God. Restoration of man. But man doesn't make the choice himself in the sense of free willingly doing so - for he is a sinner by nature, dead to God, a slave to sin. He cannot chose for God free willingly because he HAS no free will! His free will is that of a sin junkie - he cannot help but inject. Left to his own devices he would just sin more and more and more. Instead God attempts to change a man (through the wonder of nature, through the very words we are examining now, through conscience) to want nothing else but God all the while allowing a man the opportunity to refuse being changed so.
I will get back to you on your second post but I'm still a bit pushed (essays to do, reports to write).
As always, take whatever time you want. Gives me time to read up on my psychologist girlfriends college essays to bring myself up to speed in this area. An interesting task: aligning Christianity with Psychology!
The current one is the development of morality in children - oh dear...
Take care yourself
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 54 by Larni, posted 10-18-2006 10:03 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 7:37 AM iano has replied

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


Message 58 of 67 (358478)
10-24-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Larni
10-24-2006 6:46 AM


Re: Romans 3: 24 to end of chapter (part 2)
The person who clings to "we must accept the gift" in the hope that this will allow them a way to contribute shows nothing but their own desparation to twist things one final time. Their refusal of grace.
Just so we are clear; this means we have no contribution to whether or not we are saved?
No contribution to make to our salvation. If saved Goddidit. But if damned then it was because we refused to be saved. "Ididit" in that case. If a man is damned he will have no one to blame but himself. If a man is sent to Hell then this must be a just action on Gods part. God cannot be implicated as being to blame - otherwise the action of sending a man to Hell wouldn't be just.
The person who talks of having to fulfill a condition (by accepting the gift) is refusing to see their bankruptcy before God. They might accept themselves as sinners but fail to see what being a sinner means: totally depraved before God. Fit only for Hell - were it not for grace.
Grace is unmerited favour. No merit involved on our part.
That is one of the horrors of hell - a person eternally hating themselves because of what they have done to themselves.
This really struck a chord with me as it fits snuggly with the various symptoms of low self esteem and confidence.
How did this strike a chord?
Nice summary
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 6:46 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 8:29 AM iano has replied

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


Message 60 of 67 (358481)
10-24-2006 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Larni
10-24-2006 7:05 AM


Re: Romans 4: Justification by faith (part 1)
So the Original sin was the arrogance to regect the reality that we are dependent on God on every level. Adam saw himself without God (he percieved he could face reality alone-thus divorcing himself from God).
The Fall is a huge area so I wouldn't hope to do it any justice in my own mind let alone do any justice to it here. But your take is not a bad one. Adam was told he could dispense with God. That he didn't have to have anyone have dominion over him. And in so choosing he cut the thread on which he was suspended. Paul will cover a little of what Adams choice involved fairly soon.
This is concurrent with the Fall and the damnation of mankind (as in Adam). This awareness was lost and it was not until the Gospel that we re-discover this 'damnation' is intrinsic to humanity.
In the same way a large number of things happen concurrently with salvation, many things happened as soon as Adam made that choice. Emnity between God and man (Adam hides from God), emnity between man and woman (Adam blames Eve) etc.
Man is aware in his heart that something is not right with him. He tends to clamp his fingers over his ears and sing "La-la-la" to drown out the call from within (from God infact) which would point out whats wrong with him. An early giant of the church, Augustine, wrote:
"God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you"
So, man always had this yearning: "the God-shaped hole" as it is called. He tries to stuff it with all sorts: drugs, careers, sex, sports cars, wealth, power etc. But the thrill of these things always wears off and man finds that the hole still aches.
The gospel is a revelation about how this hole is to be filled. But it doesn't create the hole in the first place. The hole is the bad news, the gospel is the good news regarding that hole. Note that men were saved before Christ came. Abraham we will see in chapter 4, was declared righteous in Gods sight (justified). Christ has always existed. Men can be put into Christ (saved) before he came, in the time he was on earth and now.
It is through the Law that we realise that there is just no way that we can do what Adam tried to do (live independent of God) and prosper (due to the nature of God) and it is not until God actually shows us that we cannot live like this that His gift can be recieved (not accepted because that woul imply choice).
This is more or less it! God needs to convince us of what being separate from him means. Its not that a person will necessarily understand doctrine as doctrine . I understood none of it when I was saved. I was just convinced that I needed him. It be as vague as a person seeing themselves as lost at sea, drowning in whatever sin they are drowing in and realising themselves desperate for land. The AA programme works like this. It doesn't refer to God but to a higher power.
God requires us to accept (in our hearts) that we are totally dependant on him: no if's or but's. So long as a person clings to any sense of being able to do without him then he cannot give them the gift he has for them.
A man must be defeated in other words. In his fallen state he is described as an enemy of God. It is not so much that God seeks to destroy man but to more accurately: to destroy sin in man. It is a sin in man that stops man reliquishing control to God. The sin of pride. It if pride is defeated then a man will come. The war is over.
Yes, man will sin again - ie: display independance. But in Gods eyes victory has already been won. God will mop up remaining resistance of sin in man. Salvation is like D-Day in that respect. The war is over but the battle isn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 7:05 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 61 of 67 (358484)
10-24-2006 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Larni
10-24-2006 7:37 AM


Re: Romans 3: 21 on (part 1)
So, in a way, we need only to say "sorry" and be aware what we are feeling genuinely 'sorry' for (being the metaphysical crime of Adam)?
Yup. That's all it takes. Heartfelt sorrow. A sorrow enabled by God. There are various forms of words you'd get in the back of the tracts street evangelists hand out. But it all amounts to the same thing: its not the form of words but the heart behind them
{AbE} oops: not being the "crime of Adam": That would be us feeling sorry for the act of another. For our own sin. Had God not given the law nor attempted to convince us of our position then I can't see how we could be legally culpable. But seeing as he did both these things we are culpable for our own sin. If we sin we are rejecting his truth given to us. For that we can be sorry on our own behalf. Adam has nothing to do with that.
God cannot push someone over the edge who is not at the edge.
Does this tie in with the bit about it being harder for the rich man to get into heaven and the meek inheriting the world?
It does. Rich not necessarily in terms of money. It could be self-confidence, pride, power etc. Anything that enables a man to evade his need. The meek are those who see their need. They have not pride. The see themselves as spiritually impoverished.
Many would say that Christianity is a crutch for needy, weak people. They couldn't be more right. "The Gospel is good news for people who know they are bad. Its bad news for bad people who think they are good" (as the old expression goes)
So free will is concurrent with sin?
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think there is anything such as free will. Adam had free will. As had Christ. But they are the only ones who were not sinners. The rest of us are junkies (until freed from sin). How sin works and attaches to us will come up in the next few chapters.
An interesting task: aligning Christianity with Psychology!
As you can imagine I think a lot about that exact subject!
My girlfriend does too. A hint: psychologists are sinners too!
Finally caught up with you, wonder how long it will last
Not long
You seem to be getting a good hold of the mechanisms. Hope your still enjoying yourself
Going through this stuff is learning ground for me too. I caught that bit about Gods wrath poured out resulting in us sinning more being used by his love in the attempt to save us - during this thread. He lets us go > we become more depraved > he has more tools to convince us. What a genius (Him I mean)!
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 7:37 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 63 of 67 (358494)
10-24-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Larni
10-24-2006 8:29 AM


Re: Romans 3: 24 to end of chapter (part 2)
Many of the patients I work with are in an absolute state of dispair and self loathing because of the choices that they have made and the effect it has had on them.
I don't suppose the role that God has waiting for you is much of a secret then...
It falls to people like me to show how this is our nature and that one can choose not to act in a detrimental way by recognising the unhelpfull cognitions and behaviours and learning to move towards more helpfull cognitions and behaviours.
Whilst getting someone back to even keel could be seen as worthwhile, in the context of our discussion you can see how this is counter productive. Their arrival at your door is them being convicted about what they are - their sin is upsetting them tremendously and rather than being at the point of crying out to God the flee to somewhere that will make the pain go away whilst allowing them to retain independance.
M Scott Peck wrote in the opening pages of "The road less travelled" that neuroses came out of people trying to avoid what pain was trying to tell them. "People don't want a cure" he said "they just want the pain gone however it is done.
Not that what you do has no use. I went to a counsellor friend of my mothers a few years before I became a Christian for the same reasons those people come to you. I was in pain and wanted out. He used an inner child model. Rather than showing me I was accountable to God he showed me I was accountable to my inner child. It eased the pain a good bit and was, in retrospect, another step on the road to God.
Your activity would (in this context) attempt to put a sticking plaster on the wound. At times this must happen. Sometimes a person cannot handle the pain involved with coming to God and a respite is called for.
I imagine there would be ways to adapt the foundational notions involved were you a Christian. AA does it with "higher power" my counsellor did it with inner child. The person feels accountable and rather than absolve it it could be used as a lever to assist them onwards.
You'd have to be convinced yourself of course
Maybe one day....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Larni, posted 10-24-2006 8:29 AM Larni has not replied

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


Message 64 of 67 (358536)
10-24-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by iano
10-03-2006 1:38 PM


Romans 4: Justification by faith (part 2)
quote:
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about”but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
We see some more demolition of the notion that being declared righteous (justified) is something that can be achieved by our behaviour. Our good deeds. Our good deeds would be those defined as such by God. If you take actions which result in you “loving your neighbour as yourself” then you have done a good deed. The good samaritan did a good deed. The trouble is that these things don’t earn us righteousness. God is concerned about our sin and doing good doesn't deal with our sin.
That doesn’t really sound like good news though does it. So perhaps we could put it this way. Righteousness is a necessity and it is freely available and you don't have to do anything to get it - it is a gift given to you from God! This is very good news indeed. And he underlines his positive way of stating these things again by looking it from the negative: a man cannot boast. That is a negative way of expressing good news “You cannot boast of what you have done - which proves you don't have to do anything"
quote:
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."
Here Paul is teasing things out by way of comparison. If a man worked towards his salvation then, according to the norms of working life he is due salvation as a wage for his work. He has earned it. The person who would have set the task (God) is obliged to pay a man his due. Recall what I said about viewing Paul’s whole argument from a legal standpoint. Things must balance out in a just and legal sense - there can be no loopholes, such as working for salvation then not getting it. Furthermore, salvation is described as a gift - therefore works cannot have anything to do with it. He then applies to mankind in general the lesson that Abraham learnt: trusting God, believing God, having faith in what God says he will do . results in God crediting righteousness to that mans spiritual account. Try re-reading it modified slightly like this:
quote:
4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the wicked man who does not work, but who instead trusts God (who is the justifier of the wicked), his faith is credited as righteousness
Note that he says that God justifies “the wicked”. We have seen in Roman 1:18 and beyond that Gods wrath is poured out on those who suppress the truth in their wickedness. We saw to that that was all mankind - for the very nature of a sinner is to suppress the truth. Yet it is the wicked man that God justifies. “I came to seek and save the lost” said Jesus. Same thing. The lost are the wicked.
Paul now refers to another Old Testament example: The words of a great biblical hero: King David. This man was much loved and blessed by God. A man after Gods own heart no less. Yet whilst in that privileged favour he looked upon a bathing Bathsheba, lusted after her and took her. She got pregnant and in his panic David called her husband home from the war front. David hoped that the husband would sleep with her and reckon himself to have made her pregnant - letting David off the hook. And when the husband wouldn’t sleep with his wife - in honour of his men still fighting and dying at the front - David sent him back on an impossible mission so as to ensure he would be killed. And David cried out to God and God forgave him and restored him and did great work through him. David, a murderer, had as good a very reason to say as he said.
Note the covering of sin referred to here: robed in Christs righteousness as the NT puts it. A man is declared righteous because he wears a robe of righteousness - not because he is instrinically righteous. We will see a lot of mention soon about a Christian being a person who is "in Christ". Christ is righteous and anyone in him is seen as righteous. Note too the parallel drawn by Paul when he uses Davids words here. He aligns righteousness without works with a persons sins being forgiven by God. And for good reason.
True forgiveness involves no work on the part of the offender in order that he be forgiven. In the ultimate sense of forgiveness it is the person offended against who must pay the full price for the offence. If I crash into your car and you truly forgive me then you must not say “I forgive you” then send me the bill for repairs. No, forgiveness is true forgiveness when you, the offended party, pay the bill and I pay nothing at all. And a saved man is a man whose every transgressions past, present and future are forgiven him. The price for every transgression being paid for by God himself (for a price must be paid - Gods justice demands that. Jesus was the person who paid).
Furthermore, it is impossible for an offender to be truly forgiven if the offender pays in any way for his offence. Forgiveness means the offendee must pay and the offender pays nothing.
Where is boasting of work now? There is no room for it. God has done the work. He has done the forgiving by paying mans debt on mans behalf. And when he has done the work on a mans behalf, when he has paid the debt owed for sin ("the wages of sin is death" - God deposited the wages of sin into Christs account at the cross) there is no legal impediment to declaring a man as God can now declare him. "Righteous!" God says.
quote:
9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Paul’s audience hasn’t changed. They will have read this far in far shorter time that it has taken us to get here. He is still concerned with the person who is objecting in his mind to this gospel. The Jew (or anyone else) who is still wondering what the point of being a Jew is when that in itself offers no righteousness in Gods sight. Circumcision has significance regarding right standing before God for a Jew (much the same as infant baptism has for a Roman Catholic). To a Jewish mind, he is one of Gods own people. He pays his dues, he carries out his duties as a Jew and that is that. God is satisfied with him.
Paul demolishes this in one fell swoop. Abraham, the very father of the Jewish nation was declared righteous in Gods sight before he was circumcised! This means that he was a Gentile at the time! Paul uses an exclamation mark at the end of verse 10 to underline the shock value. What is the Jew to make of the person he reveres as the father of his nationhood being declared righteous whilst he was an uncircumcised Gentile? Well we know how he should respond. Then as now (if fully fledged orthodox) he would consider the gentile as nothing more that a dog. We see Jesus at the well with a Samarian woman (of little repute) and the shock that would have caused to the disciples. She was a dog. We see too the story of the good Samaritan (Samarian) who tended to the Jewish priest who had been set upon by bandits. A Jewish priest! One who above all would consider the Samarian a dog. Yet the good Samarian helps him - his being considered a dog in the eyes of a Jewish priest underlining the extent of his good deed. We see Pontius Pilate coming out to meet the Sanhedrin during Jesus' trial because they were not permitted to defile themselves so close to the Sabbath by entering the court of a gentile - and him their governor! Pontious Pilate was aware of what being a gentile ment to the Jew. Abraham - a gentile!!
Small wonder Paul’s use of an exclamation mark! “What use this circumcision?” Paul asks the objector. He proves something to the Jew from the OT case of their very own national father. He was first declared righteous before God - THEN he was given circumcision as a symbol of the transaction that took place - namely that he has been justified. The sign in and of itself is meaningless without that which it is supposed to signify. And there is as much to be learned today. Infant (or any other) baptism is as useless as it any other symbolic sign that is issued without the presence of that which it is supposed to symbolise. One might as well flash their BMW key fob around in the pub on a Saturday night - whilst having no BMW parked in the car park. That's how ridiculous pride or reliance in ones circumcision is.
And he goes on to say that Abraham is the forefather of anyone to whom this same event has occurred. This "being declared righteous by God". They can be a gentile living today or a Jew living in Jesus day. Jew or gentile it makes no difference. All that matters is: have you been declared righteous by God?
Salvation is open to all in the same way. A man believes what God says and it is credited to him as righeousness. A man is justified by faith in God. Justification by faith. Alone.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iano, posted 10-03-2006 1:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 10-25-2006 12:58 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 65 of 67 (358780)
10-25-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by iano
10-24-2006 1:12 PM


Romans 4: Justification by faith (part 3)
quote:
Romans 4:11 So then (Paul concludes from argument), he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
We are familiar the likes of Newton, Kepler, Joule, Watt etc being described as the Fathers of Science. The understanding we take from this is that there are certain men and women were the first to embark on something which we continue to engage in today. The essential principles set out then are the same principles we hold today.
This is the kind of thing that is going on here w.r.t. Abraham. He is the forerunner of people who are declared righteous in the same way, ie: by faith. He is the forerunner of the uncircumcised (Gentile) who does as he did: "believed God" and the forerunner of the circumcised (Jew) who does as Abraham did before he was circumcised: "believed God". The physical cirumcision of Judaism is an irrelevancy. We saw at the start of chapter 3 that there is an advantage to being a Jew - but just not in the sense of it making a person righteous before God. Being a chosen (by God) people for a purpose doesn't mean they have not the same problem as everyone else. The Jew is a sinner too and their sin must be dealt with as much as anyones for "nothing impure shall enter the kingdom of heaven"
There is no difference today. There are many who think that their Religion is what is going to save them. A Roman Catholic will place his faith in his membership of that church. He, like the Jew, follows its ordinances and partakes of its sacraments. But in vain. This is not to say that a Roman Catholic cannot be a Christian - not at all. But he is in the same position as the circumcised Jew who relies on his circumcision (or nationhood)for his salvation. The same goes for a Mormon or a Jehovahs Witness or an Evangelical or a Baptist or an Anglican or an anything else - if it is their Religion they are relying on but have not yet "believed God"
The Catholic can remain a Catholic - God is not interested in which denomination a person holds to or whether they hold to none. To be saved any man must somehow come to believe what God says concerning him in order to have righteousness credited to his account. Look at the worlds Religions: can you see the same thing. The practices and ordinances of each Religion are what faith is put in. The Muslim has his 5 pillars. The Buddhist meditates. The Hindu offeres sacrifices to his god, the Roman Catholic is baptised and goes to church on a Sunday. These are all parallels of the physical circumcision in which a Jew places his trust.
Jumping a little ahead to Romans 9 and a little back to Romans 2 we can tie something of this argument of Pauls together. His dealing with the person who is understandibly shocked at this "justification by faith" doctrine. Shocked that a (perhaps) life long holding to membership of a nation then (Israel) or Religion now means nothing in terms of salvation. Or to look wider: shocked because they, the atheist and humanist, find this theoretical God who they like discussing so much doesn't look to the morality of the man in His assessment of a man.
Isn't that counter intuitive? Try it yourself. Talk to the average unbeliever (one who doesn't really have an thought-out worldview) and ask them if there was a God and a heaven do they think they would go there. If they say "yes" ask them on what basis they think that. You will be told "because I'm not such a bad fellow. Sure I mess up now and then - I'm not perfect. But God, if he exists, would be ok with me"
Have a read of all three of the following sections...
quote:
Romans 2:28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
quote:
Romans 4:11 So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised
quote:
Romans 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.
Hopefully you will begin to see the link. There is a physical nation Israel, then as now. Abraham was the founding father of that physical nation. And the physical descendants of his are his physical children. Physical Israel are Gods chosen people. Chosen by God to be the people through whom he would reveal himself through his word and through whom a Messiah would come to save the world. We saw this at the start of Chapter 3.
But Abraham is also the spiritual father of a spiritual nation that God is putting together. The physical nation Israel claim Abraham as their spiritual father too but this is not the case. This spiritual nation of God is a nation consisting of...you guessed it...chosen people. But chosen in a spiritual sense. People chosen according to the criteria mentioned previously: "Do they reject my attempt to save them". And the people who make up that spiritual nation are spiritual Jews. People who have had a circumcision - not of the flesh (as a physical Jew would have) but of the heart: a spiritual circumcision they receive when they are declared righteous. Not declared righteous by obeying the law but declared righteous by God because they believed him - be they physical Jew or physical Gentile.
quote:
13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Paul is driving the above points home. The account in Genesis of Abrahams dealing with God rests on his believing God. The covenant that God established with Abraham was an unconditional, everlasting one. It doesn't rely on Abraham "keeping to his side of the bargain". It is an unconditional covenant in the sense that man has to do anything to ensure its maintenance. Now do you see why Jesus railed at the Pharisees so much? The Pharisees were all about legalistic Religion but were missing the point of the convenant devoid of law. Eternal life wasn't going to come through the law. God was going to build up a nation of the living by justifying those who believed him.
The law itself is, as we have seen, a means whereby God can justly pour out his wrath. See it here as Paul says it again.
quote:
And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Isn't it plain? Sin was in the world before the (God given) law came. It was back in the garden of Eden with the serpents temptation Sin was in man long before the law was issued. But God cannot legally punish sin where there is no transgression of law - for want of a law. Think about it: if there is no sign saying "30mph" then no justice can convict you of speeding. If there is no sign saying "Keep of the grass" then no court can convict you of walking on the grass - even if walking on the grass causes damage to it.
The law given in order that sinful man would have a law to transgress. And when man transgresses Gods law, God is just in pouring out his wrath. And we have seen what that can mean one of two things
- the potental positive outcome. It may lead a man to salvation if he is convinced by God he must keep it yet cannot keep it.
- the potential negative outcome. It may condemn a man to Hell if he refuses to be convinced he cannot keep it and persists in insisting he can keep it. Or insists that trying to keep as best he can can ever suffice
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by iano, posted 10-24-2006 1:12 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 11-28-2006 8:46 AM iano has replied

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


Message 67 of 67 (366768)
11-29-2006 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Larni
11-28-2006 8:46 AM


Re: Romans 4: Justification by faith (part 3)
Hi there Larni. I wasn’t sure if you were continuing with this. I’m away from EvC but will pop by for this if your posting to it. A bit of a long post coming up but since Paul is going to be going to be dealing with aspects of the law chapters 6 and 7 a bit of a root around might be good by way of preparation for us both.
So the Law is there to show us what we (are) doing wrong, even though we can never live up to the Law.
To do a rough recap. We have seen 3 central points that Paul has made so far.
1) Every man is sinner and Gods condemnation and wrath is upon him because his sin.
2) Attempting to ”get right’ with God through trying to obey the law will not solve the problem of mans lawbreaking. I say ”try’ because no man can keep all the law.
3) What it is that does solve the problem of a mans sin (or unrighteousness) is believing what God says. This believing God results in God crediting righteous to a mans account (legally: Christ pays for the sin and his ”paid in full’ receipt is credited to the man by God)
In Romans 5 Paul is going to talk some more about this way of salvation being a sure way of salvation - that a person justified by (by means of or through the medium of) faith is guaranteed to spend eternity with God and all the rest that goes with salvation. Paul will continue on this ”assurance of salvation’ theme in chapter 8 but will first insert a parentheses into his train of argument (by means of chapters 6 and 7) in order to deal with, amongst other things, the law. His reason for doing so is that he must address some of the questions and objections that can be expected to arise in the mind of a person who has been told the astounding things above. And they are astounding things - especially the completely counter-intuitive notion that being good/moral/law-adhering doesn’t count one iota with God in terms of it gaining a man his salvation.
But regarding what you say above. And I mean this in the context of the laws function in so far as it pertains to a non-Christian/unsaved/unjustified/legally unrighteous person. The law applies differently to a Christian/saved/justified/legally righteous person - and we should not confuse the two categories of people.
So the Law is there to show us what we (are) doing wrong, even though we can never live up to the Law.
Nearly, but not quite tight enough. If the law was there to show us what we were doing wrong then the tendency might well be to try not to do wrong. We would tend to extract out that the law is to operate as a moral guide. We must move back a slight step to something far more . er . fundamental. The law is there to show us that we do wrong in the first place. That’s where we need to halt. We should not (but do) bypass that fact, accept it and carry on to investigate and be concerned with the what we are doing wrong and how we may avoid doing wrong. We’ve gone too far. What is important is not ”what we are doing’ but ”that we are doing’ in other words. Furthermore: it's not "doing wrong" but "doing wrong in the sight of God" an important distinguishment that gets forgotten about in the clamour to obey the law.
It makes no difference whether the man is an atheist or a religious. The case of the atheist is obvious enough. Patently he must be convinced. But so too must the religious. The religious might see that he does do wrong in the sight of God. He accepts that. But he is a man only partially convinced by the law. He is not convinced that this alone (his doing wrong) condemns him. He is not convinced that there is no need to progress further in his wonderings about his eternal fate. He is already condemned and should halt right where he is. But he doesn’t halt. He skips on to get to thinking about how he can resolve this problem. That by his trying to obey the law he can somehow redeem himself. Paul has demolished that notion. And the law, enabled by mans own lawbreaking, will seek to drive the words of Jesus and all the others into a mans heart. Witness the rich young ruler as he approaches Jesus in Luke 18. It would be worth reading the complete story but I’ll just put up the key verse here. Notice the starting precept of the rich young ruler:
quote:
18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
“What must I do?” “How do I redeem myself?” “How do I earn righteousness?” All the same thing. He did much good, this man, but Jesus knows that no one can follow his commands so poses one for the rich young ruler in order to illustrate the very thing that Paul has been explaining. “Give up your false god: the love of money, comfort and luxury and influence” Jesus told him in effect “and come follow me” The rich young ruler couldn’t comply and so failed the first of Jesus two golden rules: love God with all your heart soul and mind.
“By the deeds of the law shall no man be seen as righteous in his sight” said Paul early on in Romans. For the simple reason that no man, rich young ruler or otherwise, can follow all the deeds of the law. Everyman has his own personal stumbling block.
The religious man ignores this first principle and ploughs on. Recnognising his sin he denies his automatic condemnation and seeks refuge in “I am trying to do better”. But the law continues to press at him at every turn. And when that man inevitably stumbles the law cries “Lawbreaker, lawbreaker, lawbreaker” at him. “I must try harder and harder” says the religious man in response - refusing the conviction the law is trying to lay on him. That’s all ”trying to obey the law’ is, Larni: an ongoing rejection of the true message of the law which tries to get a mans attention and tell him that he is already condemned and that every transgression only adds to his condemnation. Getting it right sometimes doesn’t deal with having gotten it wrong so many other times. It’s a message the religious man refuses to listen to because the consequences of accepting that message are so terrifying he finds he cannot accept it. He is literally sticking his head in the sand. What he is not doing is considering the good news - he has missed it completely. The good news is telling this man that on the day he relents and accepts his hopeless condition before God he will find God holding out that which he desperately seeks to earn himself but cannot. Righteousness - offered by God to man - as a gift. Its sitting there waiting for him and the only thing stopping him having it is his own refusal to have it.
It seems to me that God is; and that is definitial for the state of the universe.
Not quite sure what you mean here. But I take this from it in relation to law.
A wrong take on the purpose of the law tends to get man focused on the law and what the law is apparently trying to achieve. The law as a moral guide. Take “keep off the grass”. That’s a law and that laws apparent purpose is force people into not damaging the grass. And people find that they have varying views on this. Some won’t give a monkeys and will trek across the grass. Others obey the sign fearing retribution or feeling it goes against their moral code. Each has a subjective take on the law. But what lies behind that law is the motivation of the person who put up the sign in the first place. Not their retribution nor the putting up of the sign but the original motivation right back at the start. Their original goal is for the grass to frame a lovely flowerbed they placed in the middle and they intend that all should enjoy the whole thing as it is designed to be enjoyed: to simply view it. The goal is not that others come along and spoil what is intended by having picnics on it or letting their dogs crap on it and in so doing ruining it all for all. The person who put the sign up didn’t and doesn’t want the sign there, they want a situation where all people appreciate the arrangement in the only way it can be appreciated without it being destroyed. As it was designed to be appreciated. The law is a later thing - not the original desire or motivation of the originator.
God is . perfect. Everything as he intends it can be enjoyed in one way only. As he designed it to be enjoyed. We think we can do better and for a while it seems that we get away with it. But we find that our letting our dog crap on the grass ruins our next picnic - whose left-behind food remnants soils our shoes the next time we take a stroll on the grass. Our deciding to pluck some flowers from the flowerbed for a nice (but temporary) arrangement back home reduces the visual pleasure we and everyone else gets next time we/they are passing. Man wanting to do things his way only and ever mucks things up.
God is indeed definitional. His way is the only way it works. And he is trying to get us to see that. And to bring us to the point where we will let him alter us so that we too see the sense (not the condemnation) behind the sign “keep off the grass”. For when we do see it finally there will be no more need of the sign. And that place is called heaven. There are no laws in heaven for there will be no need of laws. All there will be is people who have been once convinced that Gods way is the best way. The only way. And having been once convinced God promises to do the work necessary in order for that person to be fit for heaven - where all they have to do is enjoy what he has laid out for them.
Without the Law (as an illuminating factor), we would have no idea as to the nature of our transgression (our very existence).
Without the law to illuminate we would have no idea as to our nature. Our nature being a desire and tendency towards sin as my cat’s nature is to bring in dead birds. As an aside: it wouldn’t be justice to punish my cat for bringing in dead birds - that’s her nature. Nor would it be just to punish us for that which we do according to a nature we were infected with. Not justice that is, were it not for something that my cat has no access to - a call of conscience. The call of conscience is the medium by which the law is enabled to illuminate our nature for us (and perhaps lead us to salvation). It happens to be the very same thing that makes us culpable for our sin and results in us being justly damned - should things go that way. Conscience, or rather the law (illumination) delivered to us via conscience, is a double edged sword.
Have a look at what Paul says in Romans 7 regarding the laws illumination.
quote:
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire.
Then it follows that the Law lets us say "I can never live up to that with out help, but I must recognize that I need (and then ask for) help from God."
The law finishes with us at a point (in the context of a person in an unsaved state I repeat). If it completes its God-directed mission successfully then it will deliver us off at a particular place. A point where we know that we are in real trouble. We might not be considering it to be Gods laws we are breaking at this point. Or even think of God as a solution. The law has completed its work when it has delivered us to the place of deep trouble - then it retires its work done.
In my own case the sense (IIRC) was just that I was, deep down, bad. And of realizing that there was no hope of me being good. And that this mattered to me - otherwise I wouldn’t have been troubled by it. The law had (this is me using 20/20 hindsight) convinced me there was something rotten at the core of me. It was whilst in this state that I picked up a small tract my mam had given me years before and which I had stuck in a bookcase. In it, I read that what I was undergoing was down to sin in fact - sin maintaining a separateness between me and God in which rotteness could flourish Rotten wasn’t occurring in a vacuum - there was a reason for it.
So when I prayed (from the heart) the prayer at the end of the tract it was not that I believed in God (for I had no hard evidence of God) but that if there was to be any solution to this then it could only occur if God existed. God would a) have to exist and b)resolve it (as the tract said he promises he will) - for there was no other possible avenue of escape. I (as does everyone else) tried to evade what the law is doing all the way down the line - I’d just run out of avenues of evasion. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians
quote:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. ...
I tried to evade it but this is what it ended up doing for all that. It brought me to the place where there were no options except him. And I took the only option available. This was not a choice on my part because faced with only one option choice is not possible. A heartfelt confession was needed from me and the law didn’t make that confession for me. But it brought me to a place where I could make that confession . for want of any options. I could have rejected along the way. Refused to be brought. But this is the way God works to remove all the options so that he is left as the only one. He brings a person to the point where they are scraping the bottom of the barrel only to find him. He is meek - not proud.
Therefore (and correct me if I am wrong) following the Law is not the point. The point is that the Law is real and we can never live up to it. The subsequent transgression is taken by Jesus if we let him.
Pre-conversion following of the law is certainly not the point. You might be seeing that doing so is theoretically counter-productive because it works against that which the law is actually trying to achieve. A man who errs into being content as to his law following is further from being convinced than the man who is discontented because of his law breaking. "Blessed are the poor in spirit for they shall inherit the earth”. Law following is Religion. The danger of Religion is that it brings religiosity and hypocrisy and self-satisfaction - anything but poorness of spirit. Religion occupies a number of lanes and the wide highway that leads to destruction. Little wonder the Bible attaches numerous health warnings to Religion
The law’s function will hopefully be clearer both theologically (“convincing us we are sinners”) and practically/experientially (“we don’t have to know the theological aspects in order for it to complete its task”). When delivered at Christ we WILL turn to him as our only hope - because we are hopeless otherwise. All past transgression and all subsequent transgression is dealt with by him. Post-conversion sin is another story. Paul will be dealing with the state of a believer in his relation to the law here in Romans too
How am I doing?
Pretty darn good. Don’t be put off by the length of the post. The essentials are in what you say but its good to pick them apart a little for clarity. Much of this will come in useful when dealing with Romans 6 and 7 anyway.
Later dude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Larni, posted 11-28-2006 8:46 AM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024