Great Debate: Romans 1-9 - Larni and Iano

You're entering the area of 'the doctrine of pre-destination' which is presented by Paul at the end of our area of investigation (Romans 9). Hopefully the trip there will provide material which clarifies things in your mind, as it has in mine, about what is admittedly, a difficult issue. This is especially the case if it is taken in isolation as is any doctrine. Rather than discuss this in detail now we should leave it until all the 'fors' and 'therefores', which link their way through Pauls argument, are laid out and we arrive at this point and can conclude for ourselves what the implications of this particular element are.For now though. The doctrine of predestination holds that God is absolutely sovereign. What he says goes. I agree that he is sovereign. In this particular context, he can chose people to be saved for whatever reason he wants - and that is fine. He is God and as Paul replies (in Romans 9) to a person who would shout "Unfair" when faced with their take on what Paul is saying. "Who are you, oh man (to judge or question Gods actions)" If God chose absolutely randomly then that is fine. If God chose on the basis of some perfection in the ratio between the height and armspan of a man then that is fine too. If it was to let those who he choose know how much grace they had received by showing them what happens to those to whom he choses not to show such grace (which is Pauls way of underlining the point)...then that is fine too. Paul reminds us of something both Christians and non alike are wont to forget in the hussle and bussle of flexing our intellectual muscles...We are HIS creation - he can do what us what he wills - irrespective of what we think about it. He is God. If he says it's right then it is right - for he defines right - not us. If his intention was that we would stand on our heads for all eternity, with our fingers stuck wiggling in our ears whilst whistling "Dixie" - then that would be fine too. We might both agree that the trouble the Bible goes through suggests that there is some more depth to the whole affair than something such as that. But there is no need that is should.That God chooses/elects those to be saved is beyond question. Paul states it quite plainly. There can be no doubt about it. The criteria for Gods choosing is not stated however. Now, Paul doesn't respond to every single question anyone might possibly have in the argument he presents - he deals with headline objections - the rest are derivatives. Might we be expected to be informed enough about his argument (at this Romans 9 stage) to arrive at some of our own conclusions? God choses: it follows that 'choosing/electing' involves some criteria when it comes to choosing some people (and not others) upon whom the saving (as opposed to calling) power of the gospel is applied (Paul has given examples of calling power already in chapter 1 concluding from that "that man is without excuse (in his denial of God)"For (very Pauline ) a man saved is simply a man transferred (as Paul has shown), by the gospels power, from one position (blind) to another (can see). From darkness to light etc. That is a moment in time, a particular event. That is the point of being changed from the status 'saved' from the status 'not saved' . Its a positional thing, a citizenship thing. That singular event is different from that general part of the gospels power which beckons at a man to come to God. And we see beckoning all over the gospel accounts. Jesus beseeching, reaching, coming for the lost. How many are attracted to Jesus and are enamoured with what he is saying. "He speaks with authorithy" they said. Crowds flocking to his teaching, thousands being fed with loaves and fishes while they listened to what he had to say. The road crowded with people as Jesus rode on a donkey into Jerusalem for the last time before being crucified. But few around when it came to standing by him at the end. "(the)Many are called - (the)few are chosen"The place we must look in deciding what Gods criteria might be is the Bible ..or more properly, the attributes of God revealed in the Bible which allow us to piece together a satisfactory (for ourselves) conclusion. I am mindful of Pauls rebuke myself when I stand on such holy ground: I do not say that what I propose to be the case is of the same order as my knowledge of Gods existance or the fact that I have been saved by is grace. What I am proposing with respect to predestination is a firm belief as to the way it is - given the overall argument contained in Romans and the Bible as a whole.There being no statement in the immediate vicinity regarding what Gods criteria for chosing is, I would argue that God choses those who do not reject him. That that is his criteria. His foreknowing who will reject his call does not in any way result in their having to reject him: our yesterday, today and tomorrow are all present tense to him - our actions can be viewed (in one sense) as passively as one would a TV programme. He can view our rejection of a particular event of his calling before that call is even issued. Nor does it mean they (the lost) have not been presented with the same quality of opportunity as everyone else: "Gods is not willing or wanting that any should perish but that all would come to repentance". We might suppose he does his utmost in that respect. Remember too, that it was at the very last supper that Jesus held out his hand of friendship to Judas - he honoured Judas by dipping bread and handing it to him - even knowing that Judas would betray him.Let us not slip into the error of supposing that foreknowing means God decided that there never was any hope of salvation for some people - that they would never get an opportunity of salvation, that his hand would never be held out to them. We must get it clear in our heads that two media are involved here. It is in the temporal (our) realm that God holds out his hand to all. He already knows every call he will ever make on a man. And he already knows the response of a man to that call. Knowing this, he can pre-destine the person to be one on whom the final, saving element of the gospel is applied. And pre-destine those to whom it will not apply. The two dimensions are critical to hold in our minds. Its mind bending and we cannot understand exactly but we can see that such a scenario does not defy reason. His choosing, according to the criteria of rejection, maintains God as just and fair and loving in a way that makes sense to us - it is consistant with an absolute sense of justice which we agree with (although cannot apply ourselves due to our falleness). He is sovereign and thus free to chose however he likes whilst being just in so doing - however he does so. We would not be able to fathom such justice. But..If his criteria is, as I believe it to be. "Do they reject my call on them?" then it all fits. "If they do reject, then their will(power) will be done. And if they do not reject my call on them then my will(power) will be done. And that power will bring them to a place whereby they have no option but to turn to me for my grace. They will find themselves like the prodigal son - with no option for life but to turn back to the person they had rejected and whose love they had spurned. And I will be there, as the prodigal sons father was, ever looking out for them to turn to me. And I will receive them with delight. Their joy and mine will know no bounds"So, I hold that if a man is saved it is Gods power which did it only - man had no part to play at all. Nothing to do with it. If a man is lost it is mans rejection of Gods power attempting to save him. I have given the neutral/drive gearbox analogy before. I point you to it again.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Paul has spent a little while introducing some wonderful good news. Good news from God about which he is proud. So enthusiastic is he about it in fact, that he has traveled for years and faced all kinds of persecution and hardship in spreading this good news (see the book of Acts). We shall see more of his wonder about the greatness and goodness of God expressed throughout this letter. He cannot contain himself at times such is his joy. God has done something remarkable. Gods has taken an action in providing a means for mans reconciliation with Himself. The reason for this action is clear and manifest in the NT: it is born out of a love for fallen, sinful man.“For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son so that . ” and...“greater love hath no man than this, that he lay his life down for another”.There is no greater testimony of one persons love for another than this - nothing more valuable in their possession that they can give. Their love is such that they would die for the beloved. Mothers push prams out of the way to save their child - preferring to take the hit from the car instead. God did the same thing. This gospel hinges on Jesus giving up his life. The cross is not only the perfect expression of Gods attribute of wrath poured out on the sin-bearing Christ, it is also the place where we see perfect expression of Gods love. God dying for those who he loves. The cross is the place where wrath and mercy meet. The cross is where Gods love pushes mankind out of the way of an oncoming freight train. The freight train being another of Gods attributes: Gods wrathSo, God has not only got the attribute of love as a central element of his nature. God also has wrath as a central attribute. What is wrath? My thesaurus produces words such as: anger, fury, rage, ferocity. God pouring out his wrath means that he pours out his anger and fury in ferocious manner. He must possess wrath in order for it to be poured out. God is angry about something and he is (not just Old Testament was...) expressing this anger. And his expressing of it is revealed, Paul is telling us. It is something that we see all around us if we only look at it. We are the objects of it so we can be expected to experience it. And experience it we do. We might not believe that his wrath is poured out on our ungodliness and wickedness but that is irrelevant to the fact that he is doing precisely that.(How does this gel with the notion that the OT God was the wrathful one and the NT God is the soft, cuddly one. Is it not demolished in this one sentence? God IS pouring out his wrath now just as he ever did.)God is angry about something and we only have to look at what he is expressing his anger against to find out why he is angry. It is the godlessness and unrighteousness of man which enrages him (for unrighteous, modern translations use the word 'wickedness' which explains the concept in plainer English) And the simple reason why he is enraged is that God is not only sovereign (as Paul explains in Romans 9) but he is holy. Holy means that there is no darkness or wickedness in God at all. And we are given strong indications as to what this means in practice when we look at his laws - his laws being reflections or natural products of his own character. His law is not made to suit man and it is irrelevant whether or not man can keep them fully or not. Gods laws can only be what they are, he cannot soften them to suit us. Holy cannot abide with wickednessHe hates the wickedness inherent in adultery for example. It angers him because adultery destroys an institution set up by God which is good. Marriage as God intended is not man-sized, it is God-sized. God intended that aspects of his work and plan for man would be carried through this institution, this mechanism, of marriage. His intention was that man and woman would become united as one flesh (flesh in the Biblical context includes mind: thoughts and emotions) and in so doing would meld into a unit that was greater than the sum of its parts. His intention was that this unit would be the place wherein (for example) children could be raised in a caring, loving environment. Not the caring environment of man-sized relationships which though ”good’ by our measure cannot hope to compete with that which God intended for it. Gods power is intended to be expressed in a holy, god-focused marriage and it is intended to be a place where man and woman could have needs met by another needs which by themselves they could not have met: “God saw that it was not good that man be alone” Adultery destroys that unit and results in all sorts of ugliness. Gods plan for mans good is thwarted, his sovereign plan cast aside with man choosing to go it alone - according to his own man-sized plan. Man, as Paul says above " holds the truth in unrighteousness" The sense given to 'hold' here in the original is "holding down" or "restraining" the truth. The NIV version puts it like this: "supresses the truth (about the holiness and sanctity of marriage in this example) in his wickedness” And the wickedness man uses to supress this particular truth is his perverted view of sex.God in his goodness and kindness invented sex. He invented it to be far more pleasurable than was necessary to ensure procreation. Sex is a blessing from God. Would not a simple hunger like we have for food have sufficed if mere procreation was on his mind? - we hardly fail to eat do we? He invented it as a method whereby that melding could occur: in the intense melting pot which tears down walls that is true lovemaking. But man, in his ungodliness and wickedness, cast aside the good and proper function that God intended and held over only the hollow shell of sexual pleasure. Man merely wants his lust and immediate desires satisfied. He casts aside Gods plan and satisfies himself according his own desire. In short: rebelling against Gods sovereignty and right to have His plan for man executed - not mans plan for man. Anytime man acts in ways contrary to Gods way he is acting in unholy fashion. For God is holy and anything counter to his way and intentions is unholy. We can see the full extent of the significance of sin being expanded here.And it is not that God has no right to be angry. He has every right to be so. Mankind (represented by Adam as we shall see) was given plenty of choice and room for expressing his will in accordance with Gods own will. Boundaries in which he could express what it is to be man-as-designed creature. God said “Anything in the garden except one thing” Man chose not to live within the boundaries God set and in so doing became a rebel. So Gods wrath is not a piqued anger or a petulant anger. It is a righteous anger. An anger he is entitled to express - purely because he is sovereign and that sovereignty has been trampled underfoot. God allowed that it could[/b] happen - but that does not change the fact he has a right to be angry if man chose to go that way. He did warn of the consequences so there is no excuse - no trampling on his sovereignty then complaining about the consequences of so doing. Man is without excuse.God is holy, he cannot not be. His being angry is not a choice made but a natural expression of what holy must do when faced with unholiness. It is as natural and unavoidable as the laws of motion are. Gods ferocity of anger against ungodliness (living in rebellion against godly ways) and wickedness should, if we are to pause and consider it, give an inkling into how holy he is - what is it for there to be no darkness in him at all. We know that even so much as looking lustfully at a woman is considered as sinful as the actual act of adultery. The one is as unholy as the other in his sight. We, in our own wickedness, rank these things and don’t see the one eqauting to the other. Against the only absolute measure there is we can only be wrong however. Holy is very holy in fact. “No darkness at all” means precisely what it says.So, we see Paul is giving logical, reasoned argument to back up his assertion that this gospel is good news to beat all good news. The central reason why this news is good isa)Gods holiness is offended by man and as a result he is infuriated and angry with man. His wrath is being poured out (which is bad news indeed)but...b)Gods love has initiated a way for man to escape this fury - to be spared it. For to have God infuriated with you is grounds sufficient for fear and terror without limit. Imagine it: the power of this God, who can speak all we see and wonder about into existence, being directed, in the form of fury at a mere man. Reason to tremble indeed were we to truly consider it. Fantastic indeed that there is a way to be saved from it. Could you point to some better news?The rest of Romans 1 describes mans fall into utter decay and degradation as his ungodliness and wickedness are expressed. There are a couple of things to note about the rest of the chapter and then we can move on to the main ideas contained in chapter 2. Like I say, the move will be swifter from now on once basic ideas are established:God is angry with man and for right reason. Man needs some good news and Paul is telling us what it is. Thats the main point here.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

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,

---

God is angry with man and he is expressing this anger. This very day. One might take it that this anger is only expressed against a certain section of the world - against men who suppress the truth: the ungodly, the pagan, the idolaters. There are many people who would exclude themselves from this group. In those days it would have been the Jews who excluded themselves. In our day it would be any God-of-the-Bible directed Religious who were reading this bit of Pauls letter. Paul will demolish that view that any are exluded in Chapter 2. The wrath of God is poured out on ALL men.

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,19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

---

Another of Paul’s link words to note: “since”. He shows that God expressing anger against godless and wicked man has, as all anger does, a reason. And this is it: God is not a master expressing anger at a dog pilfering a chop from his dinner plate. God is angry because man is deliberately, knowingly and consciously taking the action he does. God has revealed himself sufficient to man for man to know what his actions should be. Man has a God-given conscience which tells him what he ought - but he suppresses or buries this truth. He suppresses his conscience, denies what it is saying to him and carries on as he wants.God is holy and holiness hates sin. It is right to hate it for sin is ugly. Gods anger is a just. It is a righteous anger against mans sinfulness and the means whereby he sins - by suppressing truths revealed to him by God. Its not only what we do - it is the way that we do it.How has God made the truth about himself plain?

quote:

---

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature”have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

---

The evidence of this is all around us. For millenia, man had no explanation at all for all that is around and within himself and should only have concluded a mighty God and the duty he would have to that God. God gave knowledge enough for that conclusion. Even today, with all our knowledge about the workings both without and within us, we have moved not a jot. We can never know that life arose on earth - even if someone manages to create life in a lab from chemical soup. We will never know what happened before the laws of physics came into existence for we will have no tools to know. We have all the wonder at our fingertips and no possibility of definitive answers. Yet we refuse to accept the only rational thing which can explain it: a mighty God. And Gods conclusion about mans suppressing of the truth of Him is expressed in this way:“Man is without excuse”.God has decided that there is enough, even in what he has made, in order for man to acknowledge him. Man hasn’t done this and God is therefore entitled and within his rights to pour out his wrath on us for not doing what we ought.We might cry “no empirical evidence” but in doing so are dictating to God the grounds on which we will believe he exists. Dotty! God says that level of evidence available to us is sufficient for us to acknowledge him and that it is not lack of evidence but our suppression of the evidence given that has us not acknowledging. What point more evidence if suppression of evidence is our m.o. We are accomplished spinners, us humans.

quote:

---

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

---

”For’ Paul continues in his damning indictment of mankind then (and now). The inescapable conclusion of God was denied meaning man had (and has) no choice but to enter Alice in Wonderland. He was driven to do so by his own desire for independence from God. For the conseqences of God are as endless as they are distasteful to sinful, rebellious man:- I am insignificant compared to him- I am reliant on him for my life and everything else- I am not my own. I belong to him.- My life must take due account of him.- He is my Lord. If he says “do this” it is my duty to do this. I am obligated to him.Mans method of escape from these distasteful conclusions was as dim as they were desparate. He went and made his own gods!! You know what we are like when you strip away all the false sophistication Larni. We're kids. Your a psychologist, you know how silly we really are behind it all. Make our own gods is man to a T!!Idols: the Sun, Moon and Stars. We know that man then, although not as technological, was no less intelligent than we are. Evolution(sic) doesn't allow him to be any less intelligent for one. Yet he bowed down to idols that he knows himself to have fashioned. Why so? It is that man cannot escape the pressure to deal with the evidence which is inescapable. But by fashioning a god himself, man can happily bow before it: because the bowing is on his own terms. Such ”kneeling before’ is a sham. A dodge, a suppression of the truth - for man can fear, respect and obey an idol in the measure he himself choses to do so. And if the god in question doesn’t suit he can do away with it and make another. It is no different today.Today there are gods of all descriptions. Personal, impersonal, pantheistic, dualistic, from the millions of Hindu gods to the singular Muslim one. Then there is godless gods. The god of Scientism. The man who worships at the altar of Science is satisfied with ”tentative’ in his intellect but lives as if tentative was fact. Or if genuinely accepting all is tentative, he lives sitting on a fence - without drawing a conclusion - which is sticking ones head in the sand. 'Abstention' has become an option. Post modernism, where all roads lead to the summit is an exercise in this. If any road at all the abstention is a road to. Our EvC poll gives as much credence to the agnostic as it does the theistic or atheistic. Having it all ways is okay in our day. The Scientist casts out arguments about the God of the Gaps as a defensive, time buying sop, as if it could ever be that by understanding the product one would arrive at the producer. One doesn’t have to know the producer to acknowledge there is a producer.Our own knowledge of the wonder of it all should be even more cause to acknowledge God: the scale of it, the harmony, the fine-tuning, the delicacy, the elegance we have found wherever we have looked. Yet man continues to supresses the truth and concludes that it was an “accident” whilst having all the empirical evidence to know that accidents do not produce this. Or the procrastinators response “we do not know yet! We may never know!”. These men worship at the altar of gods called "Accident" and "I do not know". In the face of the wonder revealed by science mans escapes are as inadequate and simplistic as they have ever been. God is not a fool. His take on this wheedling and dodging?“Man is without excuse”Does it ever strike you that modern man perpetually pooh-pooh's the dim knowledge of the past, the old ideas, the quaint (but dotty) theories that man once held. He even dismisses scientific papers written a few decades ago as passe and old hat: “Enlightened are we who stand in the present day with all our mass spectometer knowledge.” Does he suppose that 1000 years hence, his present day knowledge will appear as foolish and unenlightened as the knowledge of 1000 years ago? It never enters his head to do so. For some reason or other, we are now different. We are on the point of arriving at some ultimate truth about the totality of the universe. But there is no reason to suppose he ever will arrive. If the scale of the total isn’t known at the outset then one certainly cannot know how near or far one is away from it.By kicking things into perpetual and tentative touch, man submits to a god called Perpetually Tentitive. He excuses himself from the need to arrive at a destination all the while supposing that the journey he is on provides sufficient destination. He has no reason to suppose this is the case, that is just an idol he choses to bow before and submit himself to in order to continue in his suppression of the truth. This arrogance is the very foolishness of which Paul spoke then of people with their idols.As the writer of the OT book of Ecclesiastes embarks with: There is nothing new under the sun. Vanity of vanities - all is vanity. I see one nihilist on line now who would agree with Pauls indictment of man.

quote:

---

but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

---

The Ph.D's, the dissertations, the Nobel prizes, the philosophies. None are a defence against the effects of Gods wrath poured out. These adornments, these robes are themselves the source of blindness. A person worships at the feet of the Ph.D they hold. Man's faith is in things which man has invented. He is as he ever was, a master craftsman in god-in-own-image-and-likeness manufacturing. His confidence in himself is seriously misplaced. One only has to look at the world

quote:

---

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator”who is forever praised. Amen.

---

”Therefore’ Have you noted the persistance of this technique of Paul’s? Are you starting to see how difficult it is to extract one verse of his and form a doctrine from it.“Therefore”, (“as a consequence of”, “because of”, “on account of”) mans suppression of the truth about Him, Gods wrath is poured out on man. And this is how Gods wrath is expressed against man in the temporal dimension: God gives man over. He hands him up. He releases his grip on man. He lets man run fully in the direction he wants to go in. “Thy will be done” he says. And the result of God fully handing man over to his sinful desires? The thread which keeps a man from a fall into total depravity is cut.You have heard this before no doubt:

quote:

---

Darkness is simply the absence of light. Darkness doesn’t exist as a thing in itself

​

Cold is simply the absence of heat. Cold doesn’t exist as a thing in itself

​

Silence is simply the absence of sound. Silence doesn’t exist as a thing in itself.

---

Similarly (although not same), evil is what follows when God removes his restraint on a mans sinful nature. God creates evil simply by letting a man go. He is under no obligation to hold man so is not evil in letting man go. In the measure he pours his wrath out on a man - by giving a man over, mans own sinful nature will automatically turn to evil in the same way as energy withheld will cause reversion to darkness, cold, silence. Our doing good is not our own. (which makes salvation by works all the more fallacious). We are totally dependant on God whether we believe in him or not.

quote:

---

26Because of this (more linking), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

---

Whatever about the debate one might enter into regarding sexual perversion, I think it is safe to say that we are in the very pit of it in our day. Every conceivable sexual perversion is available somewhere or other. The level of it and the acceptability of it at surface level: on the TV, in magazines, in the lap dance clubs only gives an indication of the rot that exists down under the surface.Sexual perversion is illustrated here because sexual immorality is a particularly offensive sin in Gods eyes - a sin against ones own body > the place where Gods holy spirit is meant to dwell. It is defiling the very temple the God intends to reside in. But his giving over of man to sin, his removing of his hold spreads into all areas of mans activity as we see below

quote:

---

28Furthermore (Paul is still linking), since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

---

This last sentence is striking. Man knows that what he does is perverse. On his slide down he is aware that what he does is wrong. He knows that wrongdoing ought to be punished. Yet he perseveres. He delights in it and is excited by it. He seeks it out and goes looking for things to do. I can’t remember the phrase for it but there is a craze going around where teenagers film each other having sex on their mobile phones and then circulate the clips to their mates. Ever-inventing new perversities and applauding those who think of a new angle to it. On “YouTube”, people post videos they have made of themselves riding motorcycles through busy streets at ludicrous speeds, flying blind through pedestrian crossings, breaking red lights, pulling 80mph wheelies through lines of city traffic. And they do so because the videos are popular and they think of wilder things to do for the next one. The video where a pedestrian gets smashed up will prove the most popular of all. Of that there is no doubt.Look at our cinema. Has it not gotten increasingly decadent. Is it not called art and are not awards handed out for this art which sees Gods definition of perversion rendered in increasingly graphic fashion? Are not the makers and stars hailed and admired and encouraged in their art? Of course they are. We suppress the truth about it being perverse by calling it art instead. In a thread running at the moment the question seems to revolve around whether investigating (without much flesh showing) the issue of wife swapping is porn/soft porn or art. It misses the whole point of Pauls argument. Who but the ungodly and wicked would consider investigating the issue of wife swapping in the first place! The need wouldn't arise unless they were ungodly and wicked. Who would defend it and encourage it and split hairs about it being porn or soft porn or art if not the very mankind which Paul is talking about? It happens because of Gods wrath poured out. It is a consequence of it. Paul was speaking to Christians in decadent Rome - a seedy pit of depravity then. It is no different at all today. We ever invent new ways: internet porn springs to mind. Home videos of ones own sex life posted - there is no end to it.So, this is what happens and is still happening when God gives a man up to his sin. This is what Gods wrath means for the ungodly and wicked man who suppresses the truth about God.Chapter 1 in summary?God is angry with mankind because of mans suppressing of the truth about him. His response to this is to give them over to a fall into complete depravity. He releases his hold on man.Paul has thus established beyond any doubt that man is in need of this good news he has said he is going to elaborate on. God releasing his hold on man is a terrifying prospect. For we shall be seeing what the price of such depravity is. Paul at that time is addressing Christians, those who have already received the benefit of the saving power of the gospel but who will be established by further understanding about it. In the wider context he is speaking to non-Christians, those who might happen across his letter and be convinced by the power of the very gospel of which he speaks. Convinced that what he says of them and their current position before God is true of them."Fair enough", many non-Christians might say. "It is right that God does this with the wicked and godless. But I am not like that. I am religious. What about the godly men like Martin Luther or Mother Theresa or the Pope or all the faithful who flock to churches on Sunday. Those who acknowledge Gods existance. What about us. Surely Gods wrath is not poured out on us?"Paul will answer that objection in no uncertain terms in chapter 2Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Finaly I can get my head around what you mean by this. God knows the choice that you will make but it is still a real choice. We often hear in Cosmolgy and QM that 'common sense' answers do not fit reality and I think that this is what is happening here.God knows the choice that you will make. This is different from 'God knows what you will do'. The word choice means a choice is being made.I'm not explaining my self well but suffice it to say I get it.Thanks It does raise a question in me: Does God know that someone will regect his call if the call is never made?That is to say that I am quite happy with God knowing the out come of the call (all moments are as one to Him), but can He predict what would have occured had he made the call if he did not infact do so?To put it another way, could God model the out come of calling an individual, without having to do it in reality?

Yo!If you've got it then you've got it and thats good. But I'll reiterate argument in the hope that that various diverse strands and problems associated with Gods electing who to be saved, mans free will, God being sovereign and just, etc. can be resolved in such a way as to provide a place to rest on these issues.Hopefully we can move on then. It has been profitable to deal with the issue now - for we can arrive at it in Romans 8/9 and deal with the context in which Paul brings it up without having to go in depth again_________________________________________________________________________There are some general principles to be employed when it comes to dealing with scripture and my argument here is as subject to them as any other that may exist regarding the issue of predestination.- scripture does not contradict itself. That is a safe assumption if one has first assumed it to be the word of God (translational issues relating to clarity notwithstanding). If there is an apparent contradiction, then the problem lies with our not understanding it rather than there being an actual contradiction. We are forced to look deeper and wider.- from the above, if faced with an apparent problem then one should not panic and forget about what the weight of scripture has already said. There are all kinds of 'problem passages'in the Bible and for a young believer such as you and me the possibility exists that we will read one of these, forget what we already know, and panic into thinking we have misunderstood the whole lot. Predestination is one such issue. There are many"Faith without works is dead""Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" etc...If, for example, the weight of scripture overwhelmings indicates that God "is not willing or wanting that any should perish but that all would come to repentance" (there are hundreds of verses which indicate so) then a view which holds that he has destined some irrevocably for salvation and others irrevocably for damnation needs to take account of this logical problem. We are correct to ask "What is going on here?" The view expressed below takes account of all the issues as I understand them and is one on which I am rested. Unlike the doctrine of salvation by faith alone - which is a self-contained argument in Romans (which should become self-evident), predestination is an issue which is just dropped in by Paul and is not dismantled and examined from all angles in the way that salvation by faith is. We must not lose our heads and panic. We must arrive at a conclusion which best takes account of all that we know about God and man._________________________________________________________________________Key to the view presented here is the acceptance that God operates in eternity and eternity is something we do not understand very much. We take what we know about it only from what scripture says about it. A characteristic of eternity is that God knows everything we are going to do and every choice we are going to make already. In time we are making choices. In eternity our choices have already been made. Time is a bubble pushed out of eternity: a subset of eternity. Eternity is the big picture, time is not. John Wesley gave a sermon some many years back where he illustrates this very point

quote:

---

5. And, First, let us look forward on the whole work of God in the salvation of man; considering it from the beginning, the first point, till it terminates in glory. The first point is, the foreknowledge of God. God foreknew those in every nation, those who would believe, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things. But, in order to throw light upon this dark question, it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time. But observe: We must not think they are because he knows them. No: he knows them because they are. Just as I (if one may be allowed to compare the things of men with the deep things of God) now know the sun shines: Yet the sun does not shine because I know it, but I know it because he shines. My knowledge supposes the sun to shine; but does not in anywise cause it. In like manner, God knows that man sins; for he knows all things: Yet we do not sin because he knows it, but he knows it because we sin; and his knowledge supposes our sin, but does not in anywise cause it. In a word, God, looking on all ages, from the creation to the consummation, as a moment, and seeing at once whatever is in the hearts of all the children of men, knows every one that does or does not believe, in every age or nation. Yet what he knows, whether faith or unbelief, is in nowise caused by his knowledge. Men are as free in believing or not believing as if he did not know it at all.

---

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-058.stmBack in real world. We make choices and our choices in everday life affect the choices that others make. And our choices now will influence the choices we (and others) make in the future. It is all very complex in the sense that it is very 'BIG' and we cannot follow all the strands of cause and consequence resulting from our choices. Nonetheless, at the end of time, all the billions of choices made will result in one particular history being the history that was. It could have been any history, depending on the choices we made, but it will be only one: the sum of all the choices that were, in fact, made.And God knows (in eternities ever-present) what that history is now. He knows it (in eternity he can only know, not knew or will know) before Adam (in time) made his choice. Whatever choices we make will result in a history that God knows already. There could have been any history depending on our choices but whatever is could have been is the one God knows about. Mixing eternity and time: there could have been any history but there is only one. All he has to be able to do is know which choices we make in advance. Which doesn't impinge on ability to make choices - as Wesley points out (and with whom you seem to agree) Hopefully the above makes it clearer. What we will do is a result of the choices we make and God knowing which choices we will means, of necessity, that he knows what we will do. Me lighting up a cigarette now is something I just did. I choose to do it which is why I did it. God knew I would make the choice to spark up at this moment in time which resulted in the action. He is aware of the cellular state of my lungs and knows which drag of a cigarette will be the straw that broke the camels back unto lung cancer - if that is what shall transpire. Is that still okay? Now we come to the area of choice w.r.t. Gods call on us. The way to see it is as follows perhaps. A couple of general principles need to be established (some of which we will see on the way to this area of Romans)All men are born sinners, born in rebellion against God. Their natural (as born) state is to reject the things of God out of hand. They are on a path to damnation where Gods Wrath will punish them for their sins unless Gods Love does something about it. Gods Justice and Wrath demands that sin be punished. Paul will be showing that it is only God who can do something about it. He has already said as much in summary: "a righteousness from God is revealed"Gods love wants that none should perish (or be exposed to his wrath) but that all come to repentance. God has love for us and wrath against us because of our sin - all at the same time.Gods wrath is poured out on mans wickedness. Man is not an animal - he choses for wickedness despite his knowing that what he does is wrong. He suppresses Gods influence on him calling him to goodness. Man is an addict to sin in one sense - he cannot but inject sin into himself. He loves the rush it gives him. But an addict is one who choses to inject on the other hand and on that other hand, rightfully receives the penalty that wrath inflicts on him for his choosing to inject sin. Sin always attracts Gods wrath. That is mans position. Like a child born to a heroin addict, we were born of Adam, born with an addiction to sin, born suffering withdrawal symptoms. So we set about sinning as soon as we possibly can. You do not need to teach a child to lie. It is inbuilt that they will embark on doing so of own accord. An addict is compelled by his addiction to inject the drug he is addicted to.God issues a call on all men. He does this via the power of the gospel. The Holy Spirit is the one who delivers this call to man. His purpose is to convince man he is unrighteous before God. This is an integral part of the mechanics of salvation. Part of the methodology which is aimed at saving a man. Man has a problem: Gods wrath is upon and will eternally be upon him. The methodology first needs to make man aware of that fact. Common sense approach to any problem you would agree (certainly in your role as psychologist: incidently, what kind of psychologist are you: clinical, forensic, CBT?)

quote:

---

John 16:5 But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, `Where are you going?' 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

---

NB: the Holy Spirits work is to convince the world. One of many "God is not willing or wanting that any should perish.." passagesSo, let us consider the general call of God, by his Holy Spirit, based on our agreeing that his desire is focused at the world at large:People do wrong and they know it. Even the "morals are relative" relativist knows they do wrong. So, you do something wrong. God, by his Spirit, presents you with proof that what you did was wrong. This is his call on you. He turns on, in effect, a tiny light in your conscience (for example) and reveals to you that you were wrong to do what you did. You did not do anything in order that this be revealed to you. God revealed it to you via something he installed in you and activates in you. A piece of spyware. A virus in your programming taking captive a piece of you. It doesn't capture your will though. That you still have.Think of it perhaps as your natural sinful state being one where your eyes are locked closed. You are effectively blind. God then staples your eyelids open in one particular area and you see a landscape. There it is in front of you - and the information just flows into your brain unbidden. You made no choice in this, you didn't chose to accept that what it was is a landscape. It IS a landscape and that is the end of it - you cannot help but see it as such. No choice or action on your part. Only God doing the work. Not you.That is just one little call. Part of a general call. This is not a call that results in your being transferred from a position of being unsaved to a position of being saved. God issues many of these calls, all day long, in many ways. Concerning the physical nation of Israel, which is a model of God dealing with all people.

quote:

---

Romans 10:21 But concerning Israel he says,

​

"All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

---

And what of mans choice? This free will we talk so much about? How does our will come into it? God opens your eyes to a particular truth about yourself (in relation to your status as unrighteous before him - although you won't see it a relating to him at this point). If you do nothing, your eyes will remain open and will continue to see that particular truth as being true. Your eyelids are objects at rest held by his staples in an open state as a book is held from the floor by a table. They will remain that way unless acted upon by an exterior force. And the only exterior force that can act on them is you forcing them shut by the power of your will. Your will can wrench the staples free and slam your eyes back shut. You chose to close them and you are permitted to do so - God will not override your will he will attempt to change it for you.So: Gods action is what opens your eyes to a truth about yourself, your actions are what close them again. Your action rejects and denies this truth. It suppresses the truth.So it is with your and my wrongdoing. God calls. He opens our eyes so that we can see a particular action in a particular circumstance is wrong or contra-truth. Not in full extent or full measure. We will not see that our wrong doing has anything to do with God or his Laws at this point. We only sense that this action is wrong at this time without having to know precisely why. We might recognise it as selfishnessness or cruelty or perverse and we might think that it is so according to our own subjective measure or the standard we were thought by our parents or the standards of society or whatever. Ultimately though, all these partial standards are there because man accepts there must be a moral standard. If accepting a truth he is is measuring against Gods standard in fact, just through a man-made derivative of Gods standard.When we feel we have done wrong we may find that we are a little repulse. A little upset and disappointed with ourselves. Our wrongdoing makes us feel uncomfortable. Funny how that is: we cannot help but see it is wrong - the feeling comes unbidden. And if we do not reject this vision then wrong we will continue to consider it as wrong - that particular act of ours in that particular circumstance. We may (in fact we will) carry out precisely that action again in similar circumstances, but if our eyes are still open to the truth (it is wrong) then doing so will continue to make us feel it is wrong - we might even feel it is wrong while we are in the middle of doing the action. We might even wish we weren't going to do it even as we contemplate doing it.The fact is, we are sinners and so we will sin - just as night follows day. But if our eyes are open to the truth regarding a particular class and level of wrongdoing then in our heart of hearts we still accept it is wrong despite our actions. And it is the heart that God is primarily focused on, not our actions. He will see in our hearts "somehow I know I wish it were otherwise". He knows too that we are addicts to sin and that sin we will keep doing - despite our accepting of this truth.Or we can chose to reject this truth. You and I know that such revealed truth about ourselves causes discomfort. And in the face of that we can chose to close our eyes to this truth. Suppress it. To say "No! I am right to do this". We can self-justify it and point fingers at others so as to find escape and wriggle out from under the pressure the truth exerts on us. We might truly settle for and convince ourselves that: And so it goes like a tug-of-war. God prising our eyes open, us fleeing the light that shines on our shabby thoughts, words and deeds. Suppressing what it is he is revealing to us. And in order to travel the road to damnation all we have to do is continue suppressing. Each little call comes. We suppress. Another. We suppress. It is an continual and incremental process. No great big sin which results in our final position being set in concrete - just perpetual denial of his revealing truth. And as we deny more we get into the habit of doing so. It becomes easier and easier.Remember: we are born lost and it was the lost that Jesus came to seek and find. All we have to do to be lost is to continue along the path we are already on. It is not difficult - we only have to exercise our will which allows us to reject Gods revealing to us.Eventually one gets to one or other position on the particular issue in question. We can be convinced of what he is revealing. Or we can remain as we were born, denying what he is revealing and in so doing hardening our hearts to that call. We can decide that "Morals ARE relative and THAT IS THAT!!" Eyes wide shut.And so it goes on - in all sorts of areas: deceit, greed, lust, anger, impatience, gossip, laziness, dishonesty....pride. God trying to convince us that we are all these things and that they are ugly and wrong. Us resisting this and trying to close our eyes. At the end of the day, the person who exercises their will exercises it in the only way they can: to reject unto the end and be finally lostSo:He takes action to convince us and if convinced, our will in that area will be changed. We haven't chosen for it. We didn't change our own will. He changed it for us and we did not reject him doing so. No action means change follows. Our will will come into alignment with his will in that area. We will still sin in this regard. Likely we will sin even more abominably than ever before as we invent new ways to extract the thrill from the drug of sin. Drugs usually require heavier and more extreme doses in order to give the kick we love. As I said above: it is the heart that God is looking at and the effect of increased sin and seriousness of sin will cause even more tension to built up in us. This is as God intended it to be.Or we can freely choose to continue rejecting him - to exercise our will and stay out of alignment with his will. Our will is allowed this expression. God will not force us into salvation if our will wants otherwise.But if not rejecting then we are drawn to God. God can build on the little light he installs that is not rejected. For if we have a little light and undergo the pain that it brings then we might well take a little more light and a little more pain (although reject we still can). It is not that anyone who is saved has never resisted or rejected any of the many calls he makes - they have, many times. But he calls again and again "all day long I have held out my hands" - "not wanting that any should perish".His love is uncannily brilliant in this! It even uses the times we reject in calling us. For rejection is wickedness in action and leads to Gods wrath being poured out and leads our actions becoming even more perverse. And our perversity leads (as I mentioned above) to a conflict within. A conflict between the darkness within us and his light shining on these evil thoughts and actions of ours. This causes pain and turmoil - a healthy pain as it so happen. For pain is designed to tell us that something is wrong, that all is not well. And naturally we will want to be rid of this pain. One of two things can happen, it seems to me.Either: OR As a person is drawn to increasing light, he find things flooding in at a certain point. He gets to see just how much shit there is inside him. He becomes fully convinced of the totality of his sin (although he might not even recognise it as 'sin' just 'darkness' or 'ugliness' or 'addiction' or 'perversion'). Whatever, a man who has not rejected light unto a stone-cold heart gets to see himself for what he is: proud, lustful, greedy, selfish etc - and he is repulsed and alarmed by it. He becomes inescapably convinced that he is indeed rotten in thought, word and deed. He knows that on the outside all looks fine: nice job, friends, wife, kids. But on the inside he is repelled by his own nature and despairing of the fact that he is enslaved to this ugliness within him. He realises he is a victim of his own rotteness.Such people, if brought to that point by unsnuffed-out light, will at some point reach a crescendo where the conflict between light and that which it is illuminating becomes too much and they are screaming within for release. (Schraf will be having a field day here: Iano thrashing himself good and proper )God will bring a person to that point so long as they do not reject his bringing them. He convinces them that there is absolutely nowhere to seek release other than turn to him - that if there is any option then it can only be found in Gods existance - nothing else could possible provide release. On the way there a person may have sought refuge in drugs or religion or work or psychotherapy or violence or sex but wherever they have turned for release it hasn't worked. They can find no release. Yet they crave nothing else but.Their reason for believing in God is that they have no place else to go. All other options have failed. They are too far gone down the road to turn off the light at this stage - the light is too bright and has illuminated too much for mere rejection stop the light. The person comes to know they are ugly and rotten and bad. They have been convinced. They cannot unknow it. They wriggle still but the wriggling is of a fish landed on a beach. The only thing left to do now is to die. And it is the fisherman who delivers the coup de grace. God delivers his 'effectual call'. The irresistable final call that will transport a man from death to life. From darkness illuminated to light in full.Nobody can believe in God without reason. So God gives them a reason to believe - despair in my case, though it can take many forms. And a person in despair will call out to God. They have been brought to a position where they are faced by the raging fire of their own sin, they have been convinced of it. And the true ugliness and death which is inherent in sin - the very reason it is so repellent to God - has been revealed to them and the horror of it is so intense that they must flee to the only place they can. They may not classify it as Biblically defined sin but no matter. It is the spirit of the Law they are convinced of having broken, not the letter of Gods letter. They may not be aware of the letter of Gods law. And so they flee without knowing exactly what they are fleeing to but only knowing what they must flee from. And they find that what they have fled into is into his waiting arms. OR And God foreknew all this. And in foreknowing he could predestine this final call which ties all the conviction together and brings a man face to face with his true position. The final call is a certain one. One that brings man to his knees. It is not the general call that God issues to all, that all might be saved. Many are called (generally) few are chosen (called finally) Edited by iano, : No reason given.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 is off topic but I always like it when people say this: in fact you are dead wrong here. Neurological research shows quite clearly that the cognitions associated with the action (sparking one up) happen several milli seconds after the neural signal to your limbs and hands.Your psychological narative is always playing catch up.Interesting, but off topic: I will try not to interupt again.ABE: I am a cognitive behavioural therepist (no PhD )Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

So:Paul called by God to deliver some news - primarily to the GentilesThe news is good newsHe has given a summary of what this good news is - an outline of what he is going to talk about in his letterHe then explains the factual situation regarding Gods action in the face of mans ungodliness and wickedness. God is angry with man because of mans wickedness and pours out that anger on mankindPaul has established thus the reason why the news he has should well be considered good. What Paul is saying is that God himself has done something about this dire situation that man finds himself in.He is going to elaborate on this need now. He is going to show that every man in the world - no matter who he is, or what his religion is or how moral he tries to live - is in the same boat. Everyman needs this good news applied to himselfQuestions, comments, problems so far?

Interesting: you're up against the wrath of God No Ph.D - I gather its a long road to get clear of accreditation constraints in your game. Good old engineering: 4 years and you can start taking peoples lives into your hands.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The act of acknowledging oneself as a sinner mirrors quite nicely my own experience as a teenager. I found the world to be an increasingly grim place where people were selfish and less than perfect.I looked within my self and found that I was just how I percieved everyone else to. I came to a conclusion that people are flawed (as you mention) and that really all you can do is adapt to this fact (i.e. that's how people and the world is - quite rough) and face life on those terms.I feel something of the 'Grace' that you mention because my knowledge (of people as rough diamonds) shows that one will act in a very flawed way without feeling disturbed beacause that is the way that (flawed) people behave.This seems to be attributed to the Adamist transgression and the need to accept the consequences of this.This arguement applies more to thoughts than deeds I would hazard, but I think this fits nicely with spiritual deeds (aligned with psychological deeds).I do seem to be putting your words into the template of my life so errors may arise, but I think we are ready to progress.Can't help thinking I'm begining to sound like Brad .

Hardly. I can make sense of what your saying without my head hurting. A disturbing point we all face as we grow up is (firstly) the dawning realisation that people are flawed. That spreads out wider and wider until at last we conclude that we ourselves are flawed too.That gradual change from:"My daddy is a hero" of childhood (all is good with the world) to..."My daddy is an arsehole" of teenage years (the beginning of the world outside being flawed) to..."Dad is an okay sort" of adulthood - ("he's flawed but so am I and I'm not so bad so he's not so bad.")This is the adaptation of which you speak I think. This is indeed Gods graceful (if painful at a times) illumination at work. We see the flaws in others and the lack of acknowledgment or even awareness of these flaws (it is always easier to comment on a situation as an outside observer - your own career uses that very fact). We can see the blindness in others clearly. How many car accidents involve people standing around pointing the finger at the other as being the cause of it. We are good at seeing the flaws in others but less good in seeing them in ourselves. Paul will be looking at the mechanism more closely soon. But it stems from there alright. It is less about us accepting the consequences of this and more that we need to be shown that this is the way we are and us not rejecting what we are shown. It is important to hold that in mind throughout. Paul will force us to hold that thought throughout. Gods actions bringing us. Not us doing anything. But in the general sense you are right, we need to accept what we are being shown - just that our acceptance is a result of his work. There is a hierarchy involved in a man. His (eternal) spirit(what the Bible refers to as his heart), his (mortal) mind, his (mortal) body. Mind and body constitute a mans 'flesh'(in Bible speak - Paul will be dealing with that too)"Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" So it is the heart of a man which determines the thoughts he will permit to reign (for we experience the ability to permit and deny the direction of our thoughts) and the thoughts entertained will be those which are transferred into bodily actions. The heart is the key to it. That is where God deals with. It is that which will face God at Judgement. I can only take my hat off. You said at the start that you would approach this without the usual fluffing and side shifts that can occur in such discussion and that is what you are doing. If Pauls argument is to convince a man (or be used by God to convince a man) then it must speak to a man as a man is to be found. Error along the way is to be expected and is not the critical thing. If it is fitting broad brush-stroke like, then that's fine for now. One doesn't need to have every piece placed in the jigsaw in order to see the picture being built. Paul is very methodical. He will build up a complete picture and it is possible to see enough of it to understand what the whole looks like - even if not all pieces are there.I would imagine, for example, that after this you would have no problem in dismissing any works-based gospel that might be presented as being extractable from the Bible. Your response would be "But that is just a single verse or passage - where is the complete argument?!!" That in itself is a giant leap - given that every Religion in the world has "your effort determines your destination" at its core. This gospel says God is the one who exerts the effort on your behalf and that no good work is required by you. You may well come to see the uniqueness of Christianity in that single respect. Hopefully you will see a lot more - but even that is huge.Let us go on. Paul is about to deal with a point you have made yourself above. We see the unacknowledged flaws in others clearly. We should suppose that the same thing applies to ourselves. Paul is going to convince us of that very fact.

quote:

---

Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

---

I remember when I first became a Christian. I found myself sitting up in bed a nights with this strangely impressive book called the Bible rested in my hands. And I would open it up somewhere and start reading it. It didn’t make much sense but it wasn’t the complete and total bore I would have supposed it to be. Something had changed within me and I knew by this stage that it had something to do with what was written in this book. Occasionally, during my random page opening reading, some aspect of it would strike me. I would be reading at the speed you would a normal book, supposing the story at large to go somewhere and say something - when I would become aware that I has been arrested at a spot in the narrative. Arrested by a verse, or a word in a verse, or a short piece of the passage. And it would make sense - it would say something about me or things I did or the way I felt about things. It could be about something good or something bad. It often penetrated deep and I would find myself drifting off and pondering it, meditating on the thoughts that followed from the intitial one. Often I would underline such pieces and perhaps make a remark on it in the margin as a reminder of the thoughts it had caused to arise.I remember too (some time later) the first time I was reading a passage and I came across something I had underlined from a previous reading - along with the remarks made then. And I was astounded. This second reading had my focus on some other idea or train of thought and the underlined piece fitted in with that quite different train of thought. But it had fit in with the first train of thought too (or had caused that train of thought). IOW, the same piece fitted in with two separate trains of thought. It was then that I realized some of the significance of phrase: “the Word of God”. Not so much that there were different interpretations unto conflicting views, but rather that there were different things Gods word had to say to me about me, the world, Him and that these different paths could intersect for a moment at a common junction before heading on further down their own particular path. A person will never come to the end of scripture because it will never cease to speak to a man.Which brings us to a key issue when dealing with this (or any other) passage. God’s word is intended to speak to ALL mankind, simply because God is reaching out to ALL mankind. And in the very broadest sense, his word must deal with two main groups of people. These two main groupings of people are: Christians and non-Christians. That’s all there is: Christian/non-Christian, saved/unsaved, In Adam/In Christ, Children of God / Children of Wrath, Darkness/Light, Heaven/Hell, Righteous/Unrighteous etc., etc. Gods power, operating through the gospel contained within this and other books, is aimed at both groups. It is aimed at saving a man (if he is not saved). It is equally aimed at building up and establishing a saved man in his faith (if he is a saved man).Paul initial piece of the argument starts at Romans 1:18. That piece of the argument will conclude at Romans 3:20. The overall purpose of that section is to finally (and convincingly) arrive at the following conclusions:a) That there is a need for the gospel ( for Gods wrath poured out on mans ungodliness and wickedness and that is very bad news indeed for man. God being against man is not good news)b) That ALL men need this gospel, this 'good news' to be applied to them - in order to avoid disaster. None lack this need. No one is excluded from needing this. Not you, not me. Everbody ever born needs it. And the reason for God expressing wrath is that man is a lawbreaker. God is holy and a characteristic of holy is that is cannot but express anger against putridness. Sin is putrid aferall. God demands that his laws be kept. But not even "obeying the law" can save a man - simply because man cannot do this. He cannot obey the law. I can't neither can you. Nor can anyone else - if they say they can then they are liars. No one can keep Gods lawsPaul has talked globally about Gods wrath poured out on mans ungodliness and wickedness. And he is now going to deal with an objection that will be raised in many people’s minds. The objection that a person will raise in their hearts (expressed through their minds and fingertips at EvC for instance) in order to suppress the truth of their own need for this gospel. He is going to specifically address the person who would rely on their own righteousness to see them right with God. He will be using a specific model for demolishing the case of the self-righteous. This model was the predominant one in his day and one on which any type of self-righteousness before or since can be compared exactly. He picks up the case of legalistic Judaism with which to illustrate his point. But his points are relevant to any and all moralists whether they receive their moral menu from a legalistic Religion or whether they receive their moral menu from their family/society. Or whether they define morals for themselves. All these things are simply masks behind which hides the same principle: “I can be acceptable in Gods sight (if he exists) by my obedience to his laws. I can earn the righteousness required by God (or whatever proxy god I chose to install”)We will see at the conclusion of this section (at Romans 3:20) that the thrust of the argument is to prove that a man cannot earn salvation by obeying the law (morality doesn't work). That is Pauls prime purpose in this section: to establish for once and for all everymans need of this gospel. Once he has established that all are in need of it he will go on to explain how this gospel works. We must hold this purpose in mind (until Romans 3:20 where you can make up your mind whether his purpose is as I state it to be). I say this because there are verses we will come across here which will seem to imply that this next bit of the section is talking to Christians about their own position. But we will quickly see that that is not the case. Yes, a Christian can take things out of this passage - for he is very similar to an unsaved man in many ways - he is a sinner and so he will sin like an unsaved man. He will also stand before God and have his actions judged (only not unto damnation like the unsaved man). I can read this passage, as a Christian, and learn from God about my own sinfulness. But the primary address is to those who would suppose themselves to be right with God by own deeds.We shall see that this is not (in the context Paul writes) addressed to the heathens or pagans (in his time) - heathens and pagans wouldn't respond with the objection Paul illustrates for they don't worry about Gods laws or Gods wrath. No, this is addressed to a particular grouping amongst the unsaved. The people who believe in Gods existance and his holy laws. People who feel that they are doing fine and will be alright because they are following Gods holy laws sufficientlyThis is gospel mechanics and whilst explaining it to Christians, it is the self-righteous believing-in-God non-Christian to whom it is primarily addressed. The person raising the objection is the one who should take most note of what Paul says.As we shall see.Edited by iano, : tidy upEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

---

Don’t you love "therefores"? A continuation of the argument. And not only a continuation but a consequence of what he has argued. “What I am about to say is a consequence of the argument I have made up to this point”. His theme is the sameIn Romans 1:18 to end of chapter, Paul has been talking in a general sense. "Gods wrath is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of man(kind) - who suppress the truth of God in their wickedness". He has elaborated upon the form this wrath takes: God, in his wrath against mans sinfulness handing man over to his sin completely, removing his hold on man, letting him plunge into the pit of sinfulness. He has given a specific detailed example of what occurs when God does this: men and women turn to all kinds of unnatural sexual perversion. Towards the end of the chapter he has illustrated that Gods wrath extends in similar fashion to all areas of mans being. So, Romans 1:18 to end of chapter is commentary in a general sense. Commentary in the universal, mankind-at-large sense.Paul is presenting reasoned argument. That is his overall purpose in this letter. Reasoned argument regarding the gospel of God. And because it is a letter and he cannot talk face to face with a person, he has no option but to bring up the objections that a person would bring up were he actually dealing with them face to face. This is a masterly way to argue in writing. He could have simply presented factual statements about mankinds position before God (as he has done up to end chapter one) and left it at that. But in order to make the argument even more compelling he raises the objections a person can be expected to have. He predicts the reaction of a person hearing what he has just said. For he knows what man and his mind is like.Do take note of the way he does this - for he will be doing it again and again. His language in these places is that of someone who is presenting this argument to a live audience and it's as if someone put up their hand and objected on some ground or other and he is replying to them. See it here.

quote:

---

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things

---

From the general address regarding all mankind he turns to the individual: you. So imagine yourself sitting in an auditorium where Paul has been addressing the crowd in which you sit. He has given his saluations. He has made his opening remarks. His tone darkens:“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of mankind who suppress the truth in their wickedness”.There will be people sitting in that auditorium who will agree with Paul that these evil people deserve Gods wrath. “Yes we agree with you Paul. Look at the Nazi’s and what they did. Look at the child molester and the depravity in him. God is right to pour out his wrath and to have them suffer. They deserve all they get. And isn’t society going down the tubes - they’re letting killers out after only serving 5 years of a 10 year sentence simply on the basis of ”good behaviour’. And look at that politician who was caught taking a bribe - it is right that he lose his job. Isn't condemnation of others grist to the mill of our tabloid newspapers and don't they sell by the million everyday”Is not mankind quick to judge anothers actions? Is not a characteristic of the moralist, Religious and Self-Righteous aspect we all share? Condeming others? We must agree that it is. So Paul turns to those in the auditorium who are nodding along with what he says and points the finger at them.

quote:

---

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things

---

Total shock as the words sink in. “We are the same as those vile perverts, the greedy, the immoral, the murderer?! What?! How can that be!!” And the truth of the matter is that this is precisely what Paul is saying. Did our Lord not say that looking lustfully at a woman is as sinful as committing adultery? Did not our Lord say that being angry with another is the same as committing murder? If so, then on what basis does one draw distinctions between the vile, immoral and sexually perverse and ones own appreciative glances at our mates wifes firm butt. For if we agree that the things Paul is describing are worthy of condemnation then we are indeed condemning ourselves when we point. In pointing at them we are pointing at ourselves. For we do the same things according to Gods measure of morality, Our own subjective morality is just that - subjective. Our subjective morals find the molester actions putrid but finds no problem in a little bit of lust. But both are sinful and Gods hates ALL sin. All sin is an offence to him because he is holy - in him there is not darkeness AT ALL. Nothing. Gods wrath is revealed against sin, any sin - period. And is revealed against our sin as it is the child molesters.We know this to be true. Some might read page 1 of the tabloid newspaper and be repelled by the child molester whose have ravaged a young girl. We look at the picture of him being led out of court to serve his sentence and are disgusted by him. "The vile pervert" We know the damage he has done: not just to the innocent young life who must now go through years of rehabilitation, whose life very often is destroyed, who future relationships might well prove problematic because of the baggage she carries. It was sheer lust and desire for control which drove him to that vile sin and we are repelled by it.Then we turn to page three and engage in a bit of lust ourselves. Lusting over the half naked, big busted 19 year old 'model'. No harm in that we say in our subjective moralityh. But it is this very act of condeming the molestor on page 1 and doing the same thing on page 3 which serves to condemn us. We must now agree that Gods action against sin is the right action when taken against us. The Romans 2 man is in the same boat as the Romans 1 man. He hides behind his moralism, his Religiousity but that is just a facade which God sees right through. As as his appointed servant, Paul.

quote:

---

2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?

---

Paul continues on. He explains his rational and there is no escaping it. You might believe God exists. You might attend church. You might be an upstanding citizen in the community. You might give money to the poor. But it is not your ”good’ Paul is dealing with, it is your sin. Gods wrath poured out on it. There is nothing here about God and your good. Paul has explained that a holy God is right to pour out his wrath - so what is the problem with this? So, when you, a mere man agree that such depravity should rightfully be punished, yet do the same things, why to you suppose that you will fare any better that the sexually perverse? What difference is there between the sexual pervert and you if your idle lusting is seen as sin as much as what they do. Why should God look at you any differently than he does them? “No reason” says Paul.

quote:

---

4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

---

Either a person is a Christian or not. Those in the auditorium who are Christians and are so judging are yanked back into place by these words. They might not know the workings of the gospel yet but they do know that it is the love of God poured out on them that has resulted in them being what they are. They have just heard that the righteousness they need was given to them by God. And in judging others they are indeed showing contempt for what God has done for them. Although saved they are no different with respect to sin that those who do not yet believe. All are sinners. And now that they have received righteousness they turn on their fellow man and point the finger! What hypocrisy in the face of unmerited grace! The Christian must turn to God in repentance and ask forgiveness for this.Or the person is not a Christian and they are judging on the basis of some self-held idea about the law - the other party being seen as vile lawbreakers. It doesn’t matter whether the view is formed from a Religion or is self-defined morality. Paul is saying that as far as Gods law is concerned, they are lawbreakers too. Their own morality counts for nought. They may not have understood anything about Gods love (patience, kindness, tolerance are all characteristics of love: something which Paul deals with in full at 1 Corinthians 4) but he will go on to explain further so as to drive home the point. This person has two options. They can read on or they can suppress this truth.Do you ever notice how some people dismiss Pauls writing and prefer the words of Jesus. “Paul was influenced by his legalistic background” “Or the is a typical Pauline statement on doctrine - he is in conflict with the forgiving Jesus”. And this is the reason why. If what Paul is saying was accepted then all men would have to see themselves as depraved - for all men judge others. Paul is blowing a persons sense of being righteous and good and moral out of the water. The "I'm not so bad, God (if he exists) will be okay with me" view is holed below the waterline. So many chose not to read on, Not to accept this. They suppress this truth. They even make up their own gospels in order to flee from this.But Paul is unrelenting “You 'moral', 'Religious' 'not so bad' people are as vile and as under condemnation as the most perverse sinner. And in supposing yourself to be above another you are actually showing contempt for God and what his kindness is attempting to achieve for you.” Jesus had the very same thing to say when he dealt with the moral, self-righteous Religious of his day: The Pharisees. Listen:

quote:

---

23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices”mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law”justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

​

25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

​

27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

​

29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your ancestors!

---

The Pharisees suppressed this truth - they killed Jesus in order to do so. And suppression of this truth goes on to this day. Paul is not so easily deflected however. He will demolish the view which holds that ones own righteousness is sufficient for rightstanding before God. He will prove that anyone who judges is as bad as the vilest of sinners. And we are all guilty of having done that. Are we not?Paul needs to prove this. Because his purpose at this point still is to show all men that they are in need of the gospel. If a man is permitted to continue under the illusion that his own righteousness is sufficient for him then he will never think he is in need of the righteous that God has for him. Solving any problem is a two stage process. The first bit is to realise you have a problem. Paul is attempting to show all men, however good they may think they are, that they indeed have a problem. And a very big one. The good news is not good news unless the bad news comes first. This bit is all about the bad news He goes on...Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.

---

Paul has turned on the individual, the person who judges and condemns another. “You” he says “are in no different a position than the vile sinner I talked of in Romans 1 upon whose ungodliness and wickedness Gods wrath is poured”. Read the passage above and in so doing make not the error of supposing that Paul is introducing a doctrine of works here: “if you do good you will go to heaven if you do bad you will go to hell” Remember what he is attempting to do globally in this section. He is building argument to prove that all need the gospel and is specifically dealing with the moralist/self-righteous/Religionist viewpoint here - for people with that viewpoint are in real danger of fooling themselves into thinking everyone BUT them need this 'good news' that Paul is going to elaborate on. They might be thinking “this good news from God, that he has righteousness for vile sinners is very good for them - but I am not in need of it. I am a good, moral, godly man. I believe that God exists and that his laws should be followed”“Persistence in doing good, seek glory, honour and immortality” needs some further explanation - and that explanation will come when Paul gets to talking about what salvation in fact entail - for we have seen it to be a multi-facetted entity. He will cover this. He introduces this concept here simply in order to highlight (by way of contrast) that on which he has been concentrating in this section: mans ungodliness and wickedness and everyones need of the gospel. He has pointed out that ”you’ are the same as ”them’ . What he has already said applies to ”them’ in Romans 1 applies to ”you’ too. “You” . - are self-seeking too
- in doing the same things as them also reject the truth as they did
- too do evil things according to Gods standard - if not your own . and what will happen to ”them’ at Judgment will happen to ”you’ too. It doesn’t matter who ”you’ are. Your Religion won’t save you from that, nor will your philosophy, nor will your good deeds. If you do these things (and you DO do them) then this is what follows - for God does not show favoritism.Fortunately we are not in head to head debate mode so you might well accept holding the “those that do good” bit in abeyance for now. It can be seen that Paul uses it for contrasting effect to underline his main argument. He continues on in his theme

quote:

---

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

---

There are two types of people who Paul is has been discussing up to now (Christians will not be condemned and although hearing this, they are listening in a retrospective way (whether they realise it at this point in the epistle or not). They needed the gospel to be applied to them and are hearing why that was - but it has been applied to them and continues to be so. They are observers here - this is speaking to those who have yet to have it applied to them).There are those who make no reference to operating according to Gods written law. The atheists, the agnostics, the existentialists, the materialists - the moral relativists in other words. Paul says they will perish despite them not having Gods written law as their guide. He explains here how that is. These people have Gods law written in their conscience - their conscience tells them when they are breaking and when they are upholding Gods law. Their conscience accuses them when they do wrong and defends them when they do right. A guilty conscience or a clear one. We all experience both. And their sin will be revealed to have been known to them by that very same conscience, come Judgment. The evidence presented by their own conscience will be the very thing that is used to condemn them.Consider our consciences as black box flight recorders. A mans conscience will survive the impact of death and will be opened up at Judgment and every call conscience made on a man and every call that man suppressed will be held in plain view. (for it is only sin which is of interest at Judgement). And it is this plain evidence which also allows the condemned person to agree that their condemnation is a just decision. God justness will be vindicated before all. Oh! the shame for a man whose whole life is opened for all to see in this way. Every perverse thought, ever piece of nastiness and deceit and evil on full display. God, being Light will shine on it all, he will illuminate everthing and there will be no more shadows for these things to hide behind. Wailing and gnashing of teeth describes it well . Then there are the others, those who actively accept Gods written laws rightful place in their lives. The Jews then and now - but also the Catholics, the Evangelicals, the Methodists, the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc, etc. These people have this written law and in their Religion (for not all these Religionists are Christians), accept that they are under and subject to this law. They too will be condemned for they are law breakers according to Gods written law. A sinner is a sinner irrespective of whether he is a Religionist or Pagan. Jew or Gentile - God shows no favoritism. Sin is the big issues. That is the tragedy of Religion: a man suppresses truth and choses to think that adhering to the useless trinkets of the Religion will save him. When all the while his very acceptance of being under Gods law serves only to heap condemnation on his head. "You accepted that wrongdoing incurs wrath yet wrongdoing you did" A man will be silent a Judgement. There is no defence possible.Only those who obey the law will be declared righteous. That is all. And all are being called lawbreakers either by the law written in their consciences or the law written in scripture. All men break the law, Jew and Gentile alike. “Who then can be saved?” you may ask at this point. Well, the gospel does of course - but Paul is not ready to go to that yet. He is only at the point of making the case that all will be condemned as things stand at this point. He needs to convince everyone that they stand already condemned. Jew and Gentile alike. For God is not going to show any favoritism. He has taken steps to ensure there is no escape from the law for he has given it to all men in one form or the other. According to the law all men are without excuse. They had the law - they broke the lawThis demolishing of the Religionist/Moralist/Self-righteous position is one in which Paul is engaging. He is going to provide even more argument to tear it totally down. Religion/moralism/self-righteousness is a cancer and Paul is going to surgically remove it. Is not this a most objectionable doctrine? Especially so if you are a person who has been relying on your Religion, your moralism, your own right acts to save you.No wonder this doctrine is hated and rejected. No wonder that every Religion in the world has "what man does" as the mechanism for getting whatever it is the Religion offers. Perfectly predictable - this suppressing of this truth. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Finishing off on chapter 2: Paul makes the very point I was raising above. Being a Jew (read Religious/Moral/Self-earned Righteous) doesn’t help a man. He tells us why this is so:

quote:

---

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on (obeying) the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth” 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

---

Is it not becoming plainer? Do our papers not report regularly on child molesting and adulterous priests? Do not church-going politicians regularly get caught in some indiscretion or other. Is not 90% of Ireland placing its fate in the hands of their membership of the Roman Catholic church - all the while dodging their taxes, screwing around, worshipping the god of money, status and success? This is who Paul addresses. And he draws from the Old Testament to show again that this was always the case. Such people in identifying themselves as ”godly’ and then acting in this way actually blaspheme God. Don’t they, by their very actions, subject God to ridicule and scorn amongst the Gentiles? Of course they do.

quote:

---

25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

---

Circumcision was a symbol worn (as it were) by Gods chosen (for a particular temporal purpose) people - the Jews. And Paul is demolishing the idea that being a Jew in itself results in a person being considered righteous. He picks out this prized physical symbol of Jewish nationhood and grinds it into the dirt. Salvation by way of the gospel is for the gentile too - the uncircumcised - as Paul has already said in his opening remarks: proof that physical circumcision in itself is not a sign of being considered righteous.We will be seeing that a Christian is considered to uphold and obey the law so again do not suppose he is formulating a works doctrine here. Bide your time on this: how it is a Christian is considered to be one who obeys the law will be revealed presently. Point being: having the law, the prophets, circumcision etc - being a Jew (or its modern-day counterpart a Religionist/Moralist) does not count. We need to get straight what Paul is saying: Lawbreakers will perish no matter who they are. Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, the Pope - if seen by God as lawbreakers then perish they will.And if the symbols of the Religion now are infant baptism, or Holy Communion or praying to the West or wearing your hair in ringlets or any other such thing then the same applies. If the symbolism is the money you give by direct debit or your standing in the community then the same goes. These things, which are so often considered to be the marks of a godly person - are completely and utterly useless. Paul tells us how it is that a man IS considered godly by the only person that matters: God

quote:

---

28A 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.

---

Here Paul cuts to the chase. Do not miss this statement. Spiritual circumcision is what counts. To be a genuine ”chosen person of God’ a true Jew, circumcision has to happen in a man’s heart (his spirit). It is an inward condition not an outward condition. It is not achieved by following written codes laid down by the Religion in question but is achieved by an act of Gods Spirit. It is by (or “through” or “by means of”) Gods Spirit that a man is spiritually circumcised. We will see that it is only when a man possesses this spiritual symbol that he is truly considered and is described as being a chosen (for eternal purposes) person of God.Paul has said already that “a righteousness from God is revealed”. He has now added to it by saying this necessary circumcision is also from God. God is the person who carries out the operation. Don’t worry if not convinced yet. The theme: “God saves a man - man cannot do anything to save himself” will occur again and again and again throughout the letter. We will have no doubt about that by the time we finish. Paul is still concentrating on demolishing the idea that a man can do anything to save himself. And if convinced of this a man will then see his only hope is the gospel.Final point. Praise from man vs. Praise from God. Jesus railed at the Pharisees for their parading their religiosity in the streets. Parading their ”righteousness’ in a way that other men would admire. “Oh he is a very good man” say the people who see a man acting morally. The businessman who donates a million to charity, the person who walks down the street with a badge showing they have given money. The woman who brings meals to the old lady down the road. There is nothing wrong with these things at all - they are good things. And a person doing them is not necessarily looking for approval from others in doing them. But woe to those if they think it counts for anything with God. For thinking it does count is to think that these actions are somehow transubstantiated into righteousness. A person could not be more wrong.We are nearly finished with this opening argument by Paul. He is going to deal with an obvious objection which arises out of his demolishing of the view that hold ones being a Jew as counting for righteousness. He will then (at verse 3:20) conclude this opening argument which has been running from Romans 1:18. Hopefully we will find ourselves convinced by then. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Iano, I'm going on holiday for 2 weeks, Yay!I will get back to you on this some time after the 22nd Sept.Take it easy dude.Larni.