Great Debate: Romans 1-9 - Larni and Iano

GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOHeres some background Larni - whilst I refresh my memory:Christ, his life and death and resurrection - and the good news (or gospel) which stems from that, is the very centre of gravity of the whole Bible. It is said that the (message or purpose of the) New Testament is latent (or hidden (but discoverable)) in the Old Testament and the (meaning) of the Old Testament is patent (or made obvious) in the New Testament. Rather than being a hotch potch collection of books arising from the mind of man, the Bible is the inspired word of God; God inspired man to deliver to men what it is God wants to say to man. It can be expected to tie together and be consistant - despite apparent contradictions.The location of the book of Romans itself is worth noting. The New Testament opens with the 4 gospels: 4 different accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection - each looking at him from slightly different angles. This to provide a better view of the whole in much the same way as our stereo vision provides us with a better view of the whole.Next up we have the book of Acts (or Acts of the Apostles). It takes up a historical narrative of the days and years immediately following Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. Central issues described therein are:- the establishment of the Christian church in Jerusalem at Pentecost (enabled and signalled by the sending of Gods Holy Spirit to reside in the believers - something which Jesus has promised would happen). Pentecost took place 7 weeks after Jesus' crucifixion- by the power/inspiration of the Holy Spirit now within them, the apostles and disciples are transformed from a cowering rabble who hide in a locked room for fear of the same authorities who crucified Christ only weeks before. Emboldened, they go out and preach openly of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem - which would have been chock full of Jewish pilgrims from surrounding nations. This was the time of the Jewish period of feasting which included the recent Passover (during which Christ was crucified) and the approaching Jewish feast of Shavuot. Many thousands were converted by their preaching.*edit* As an aside: It is interesting to note the parallels here. The Passover feast remembers the Old Testament time when the captive-in-Eygpt Jews were told to slaughter a spotless lamb and sprinkle their door posts with its blood. The angel of death was sent to kill the first born of each household in Egypt as the last in a series of actions by God aimed at convincing Pharoah to release the Jews from captivity. The angel would 'pass over' any house do daubed. The passover lambs blood saved them from Gods action, Pharoah relented and they are subsequently led out of captivity. Jesus is referred to as the lamb of God. He was sacrificed by God during the Passover feast. It is his spilt blood which causes Gods wrath to 'pass over' anyone so daubed. Becoming a Christian means one is led out of captivity to sin and "will not die but have eternal life"Similarily with Pentecost, which coincided with the Jewish Shavuot. At Pentecost the believers received not the Torah ( the written law) but Gods Holy spirit (who writes Gods holy law on mens hearts) and the Christian church (the spiritual nation of Israel) was born and is committed (as the subsequent actions bear out) to serving God.This parallelism, this foreshadowing in the Old of what is made complete in the New is widespread. It's worth noting.*end edit*- this open confrontation with the Jewish authorities lead to the persecution of the fledgling church by those who had only recently dealt with Jesus. One of the central figures leading this persecution was a man named Saul (a Jew and Roman citizen from the town of Tarsus). Saul was a member of the Pharisee branch of Judaism, and one of the highest order, a highly educated man and fanatically zealous in his defence of the Judaic faith. On his way to Damascus, where he was intending to round up and imprision Christians who had fled the persecution, he had an encounter with Jesus Christ who appeared to him. Saul recognised Jesus as Lord and was converted to Christianity himself. He received a new name, Paul: the writer of Romans and many other epistles in the New Testament.It is interesting to note that it is Paul who was used in this way. A converted person doesn't cease to exist - they are not destroyed in total: their talents and abilities simply get turned around, redirected to serve God and not Satan/self (more later). Paul was a zealot and he remains a zealot. Now he is zealous for Christ and his gospel. His education under the leading teachers of his day meant he was an expert in his (misguided) understanding of the Old Testament. He would have known it inside out. Re-directed by this new knowledge of Christ his OT knowledge would have formed a formidable basis for expositing the gospel with reference to the OT - as we shall see. And knowing the flawed reading of the OT intimately, he is in prime position to demolish the false reading. The Apostles Peter and John and James, who were all uneducated men, would not have the ability required to write such an essential document. "Under inspiration of God" doesn't mean mere mechanical machine: a mans personality and ability still shines through. For this crucial, legal forensic document, the finest of minds was required.- both the persecution and the ending of the Jewish period of feasting resulted in those who had converted to Christianity in Jerusalem returning to their home towns and cities. We have a concentrated lump of Christianity in Jerusalem. A hand grenade is thrown into it, it explodes and scatters the seeds of Christianity over a wider area. And where the seed lands it begins to grow. This was the mechanism of the spread of early Christianity. Acts goes on to detail Paul setting about on a number of missionary journeys around the region in order to establish churchs. His letters: Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Collossians etc are pastoral letters written either to churchs he had set up himself during those missionary journeys (Corinth and Ephesus for instance) - or to churchs set up by others amongst which, the church in Rome.It is no accident that the book of Romans is placed after Acts. From the fours gospels, to the early history to the first and most complete exposition of the gospel doctrine contained within the whole Bible. There is no other book that would fit better in its place. Its position should give us a clue as to its importance. It is in Romans that the foundation is laid for many the sub-issues that hang around the gospel. Other epistles will elaborate and expand on the framework given in Romans - they will not contradict it. The argument (as we shall hopefully see) is finely tuned, continuous, dealing with objections and complete. At least 9 chapters long on one issue - gospel mechanics. It is for this reason we can dispose of other 'gospels' which purport to arise out of verses plucked hither and thither from around the NT. If such gospels were to stand they must first demolish the argument of Romans. But there is no other place in the NT which can be argued to exposit an alternative gospel in anything approaching this depth. Romans forms a roadblock to anyone prepared to take it on in its entirety.Paul hasn't set up the church in Rome himself. Nor has he yet visited it at this point (although his final missionary journey will see him travel Rome-wards - as we can read in the latter part of Acts). He is writing to Christians, to folk who have heard the good news of Jesus Christ (probably in Jerusalem during Pentacost). He is writing to inform them of the mechanics of that which saved them so that they may be built up and strengthened in their faith. And presumably that they too can use this knowledge to spread the word there themselves - he will, in the second half of the book (which we won't be looking at) go on to give practical application of the doctrine - for doctrine is a living entity: it is meant to be applied in our lives in a practical way: it encourages, exhorts, admonishes, assures. It is not the stuffy stuff of theology, to be read then placed back on the shelf. Doctrine is meant to be applied.TTFN LarniComments/problems?GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

---

GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANO

Thanks AA.

GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOThe book we are dealing with can be broken down into a number of main sections in line with the arguments construction - the divisions will hopefully become apparent as we go along.The first section, 1:1-15 is a general introduction of the theme of the letter (which is the gospel) and includes greetings for the Christians in Rome. The next main section, which begins at verse 1:15 and runs to the end of the fourth chapter will deal with the gospel in detail - especially in connection to the doctrine of justification (effectively: salvation) by faith alone. There are sub-divisions to be drawn there as we go along.I’ll skim over this first section extracting some salient points. Have a read of verses 1:1 - 15 yourself though - and if there is something specific you want to ask about then go ahead. The commentary I use writes 250 pages on these 15 verses alone - there is much to be said - but in the context of a brief overview you can take this section as Paul setting out his stall before getting into the detail of the argument he is going to present.For a little while I am going to change the word gospel to the words good news. It will help in your reading I think. Gospel is too abstract.

quote:

---

Romans: 1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the good news of God” 2the good news he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

---

In opening, Paul sets out his credentials as a called apostle and one who was set apart. We will pick up on this later but even here we see hints of the general contention that it is Gods action in a man which causes things to happen. In this case, Paul has been called and commissioned (by God) for a special purpose - to be an apostle. This is the role that Paul has been carrying out during his missionary journeys (detailed in Acts) and carried out in his writing much of the NT (including this, the core epistle (or letter)).Another thing to note in v1 is that the good news is of (or as will become apparent, from..) God. This small detail illustrates a general point when it comes to reading the Bible -small phrases can be overlooked, but if pondered on for a moment they raise bigger questions. Good news! We are all familiar with good news: “I got the job!” or “I fell in love” or “I won the lotto”. In reading ”good news’ we should hold out in our reckoning, the expectation of good news somewhere along the line of Paul’s argument. If we don’t get what the good news is - then either Paul is arguing for nothing or we are missing something. And this good news is from God. It is not from a boss or the Lotto agency. This good news emanates and is being sent (via Paul in this case) from God. We might thus (as believers) expect it to get our. We might expect it to be something special. And this good news concerns Gods son - Jesus.Something that will also come up again and which Paul (v1) immediately launches into, is the connection of this good news to Old Testament prophecy. He starts as he will go on again and again throughout - the OT is brought in to verify his argument, to show that this good news is not some new fad or cult, but is something which was spoken of as going to happen by Gods OT prophets.Paul’s specific mission is clarified again here: he is an apostle to the gentiles. The non-Jews. The people who know nothing of this God. The Heathen, the Pagans, the Atheist.

quote:

---

7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

Salutations here. But there is one word to note. Paul is a Christian and the letter is addressed to those in Rome. And of both him and them something can be said “God OUR Father”. The letter is addressed to Christians thus. Not just anyone. As we shall see, a non-Christian does not have God as their father. They must be adopted as sons in order to have God become their father. Until that time they retain Satan as their father.***It is important to remember throughout this letter that Christians, not everyone, are the people to whom this letter is addressed.

quote:

---

Paul's Longing to Visit Rome

​

8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong” 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

---

One item of special note here is a piece of v11. “To make you strong” (or in another version ”establish you’. This church in Rome isn’t some big building with pomp and ceremony. The Christian church is simply the body of believers; Christians, the people themselves are the church. Then, it would have consisted of people meeting in each others houses. And this in Rome, the power centre of the known world. Rife with corruption and depravity, this group of people had no real understanding of the workings of the gospel - not that one needs that to be saved by it. They had the OT. But no firm doctrine. They were in need of something to build them up and encourage and strengthen their faith. This is what Paul is doing in his letter and he longs to see them in order to pastor them personally - as he has done in so many other churches he has set up.Greeks and non-Greeks can be taken here as gentiles: non-Jews. Paul, in being “obligated” is restating his commission: an apostle/evangelist/pastor to the gentilesThat’s a skim over 1:1-15. The meat and potatoes starts next.Questions? Comments? Problems?See you in a week Larni.GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANO

Hope you had a good holiday Iano.To business.The biggest thing I can take out of this is that it seems that a man with the social and intellectual clout of Saul/Paul was used by God (note the capitalization?) through Jesus as a means of giving legitematacy to the neophyte christian religion in the eyes of the Pharisee.This was a good political move. That implied fact that the good news was delivered in a way that anyone could absorb his message was another strong indicator that he was an excellent choice.Can I take it that his re interpretaion of the OT is also concidered to be inspired by God and his selection (by God) was of one that would most effectlivly 'spread the word'?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Here I think we can see the forsight in selecting Paul for the role of apostle. So Paul is not trying to convert non-christians but expounding the legitamacy of christainity over judaism?Paul also seems to be strengthening to unity of the already present christian population yet here it states: There is an implied cause to expand through conversion the christian faith. When did this 'change to the mission statemnet' arise?

I hope so too. Tomorrow morn flight - just packing up I appreciate the capital G, it shows your intention to assume the position of neophyte (for the purposes of discussion) is being taken seriously Paul was the creme de la creme of Pharisee life. And a Pharisee would have been the creme de la creme of Jewish life. The Pharisees were seen as the high priests of God in much the same way as the Pope and his high bishops are seen by Roman Catholics as Gods mouthpiece.Paul's standing, on converting to Christianity, would have plummeted to the lowest depths. He would have been seen as a traitor, a turncoat, a blasphemer. He arrived in Damascus blinded from his encounter with Christ on the road there. Maybe his reputation got him a hearing there but it didn't last long... Killing him! "This man is an out and out blasphemer" His reputation is irrelevant under these circumstance. It was the same most everywhere he went. He would preach wherever people gathered and often times this was the synagogues in the towns he travelled to. Persecution would be soon coming. In Antioch - his first mission: Note God-fearing men. People who were not Jews had an awareness of God - just as people who are not Christians now have an awareness of God. And Pauls mission is to them but Jews hearing him preach perpetually initiated persecution: imprisonment, beatings, floggings and uproar whereever he went. He came back to Jerusalem finally and was brought before the Sanhedrin - the ruling council made up of Pharisees and Sadducess. This was his former life, the very court where he once was held in esteem. Not surprisingly: Paul, on account of his Roman citizenship manages to escape this plot and further trials before Roman governors (with the high priests as his accusers) and is finally sent for trial before the emporor in Rome.His training and background do add a legitimacy to his exposition in Romans. In this way. This is a man who traded in a life of luxury and privilege and certain rising in the ranks for a life of persecution, ridicule, revilement and finally (traditionally) death by crucifixion. He was an intelligent man, not one to be hoodwinked by your average televangelist. He was like the simple fishermen who stood so bravely in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost to preach Jesus Christ. Common sense tell us that he (and they) must have had something happen to them in order for them to undergo such a dramatic transformation.The Pharisees never stopped to listen to him when he tried to tell him what that was that transformed. The Pharisees/Sauls interpretation of OT scripture was precisely that (an interpretation). Paul is not interpreting the OT. For an interpretation is a subjective thing. Paul is inspired and when he says, as Paul, what the meaning of an OT passage is, he is saying what it means as God meant it. This is not an interpretation as such for it is an objective statement of meaning. Or if interpretation is preferred, the Pharisee/Saul interpretation is incorrect and Pauls is correct.There are common sensical reasons to see Paul as an ideal candidate alright. His knowledge of the OT can be seen as him being a guitar player who knows all the chords but is playing the wrong tune. Once the correct sheet music is placed before him he can play the new piece straightaway. Then there is his zeal. Some people are more zealous about things than others - given his experiences zealousness was a useful attribute. Judasim is a legalistic religion. Pauls legal/forensic mind could form that section of the NT which calls for a legal/forensic statement - the product of a God of Justice. Others (Christ for example) can display other of Gods attributes - love for instance.Yes, an ideal candidate. That's God for you!Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed. In historical context, this opening section is addressing Christians who are gentiles (we might suppose some Jewish Christians in Rome as well however). His overall purpose is to explain the workings of the gospel in a complete fashion. For there will be things in this gospel exposition which will come as news to even Christian. For instance:- what has actually happened to them when God made them Christians. These Christians are unlikely to know that.- that salvation is a once off thing - these Christians need to be assured that their salvation is guaranteed - irrespective of their subsequent behaviour. It is not unusual for a young Christian (especially) who falls into sin to start beating themselves up and getting to supposing that they will in fact be damned. An associated pitfall is that the Christian (who doesn't know about his assured salvation) might fall back into thinking that he has to do good works.. or else. It won't make him a non-Christian, it won't affect his salvation if he does fall back - but he won't be joyful and he will not be established and strong in his faith. He might start propagating a false, works-involved gospel even.- as a result of arguement for assured salvation which he is going to make he must certainly deal with the fallacious thinking that might occur in a persons mind when they grasp that their salvation is absolutely assured (can you figure out what that one would be? )But the letter also sits central to the apostles mission which is to spread the word out to the gentiles. He will include argument that will allow the church in Rome (or anyone else in possession of the letter, me for instance) to present the gospel to a person who is not a Christian and have at their disposal arguements to deal with the objections such a person might raise to such a gospel. We should see the historical context for sure - but we need also remember that this is Gods purpose being expressed here - and God was putting place then, that which can speak into the hearts and minds of all men in all places at all times. We will be dealing with this shortlyHe will, as you say however, demonstrate in Romans how the interpretation of the OT - as understood then (and now)by the Jews - is an incorrect one. He will do this by showing how the OT fits perfectly within the context of Christianity. How the two marry togetherIt is worth pointing out the two-strand way of looking at the exposition. Yes, Judaism is the foil against which he compares the Gospel. Judaism was (and is) a legalistic, works based religion where your standing before God depends on what you do, how you behave etc. Pauls demolition of this notion as a way to God is equally applicable to any legalistic method one might employ today. Because ALL legalistic mechanisms are in essence saying the same thing. They always have and always will.If "salvation by faith alone" then not only is legalistic Judaism dealt with, but so too are legalistic: Roman Catholicim, Mormonism, Jehovahs Witness-sim, Hinduism, Buddism, Islam - and even in an underlying way atheism and agnosticism (where we find so many concerned about following a morality - indicating morality weighs on their minds).The nature of fallen man (for we presume the fall - as Paul will expound on) is to want to be independant of God and to earn (for he assumes God requires that) his own righteousness before God, on his own terms and in his own timing. A legalistic religion disposes of the need for God taking a role in things. God simply sets the rules and is left to one side out of interferances way. One just has to follow his rules (and man will interpret/create the rules so as to ensure he is allowed plenty of latitude in doing what it is he wants to do) I'm pretty sure that this was mission-integral from the outset. Peter stands up and speaks on the day of Pentecost, thousands convert. Those thousands go to their own towns and tell others. I myself heard, believed and became a Christian - and now I tell others. There is no other way to expand Christianity other than through conversions. Preaching the gospel to a wider field is not expanding Christianity as such. If no one converts where the gospel is preached then Christianity hasn't expanded there.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Broad lines to date.From 1:1 to 1:15 we have dealt with Pauls opening comments to the Christians in Rome. He has stated his credentials as an apostle, his commission from God to spread the gospel to the non-Jewish (be it pagan (greek) or godless (non-greek) world). We have seen that this good news, on which he is going to elaborate, is something which God has promised of old - it is not something new. We have also seen that this good news has something to do with Jesus Christ, Gods son (although we don’t know yet what this good news actually is).Knowing something of Paul’s character (from Acts and elsewhere) we can tell that he is zealous in his mission. He feels, as he says himself, obligated to those who know not this gospel. He is eager to preach it to the Christians in Rome too, in order that their faith be built up. Established. Made solid.Paul, being an educated man and one who came from the legalistic background of Phariseeism is no slouch when it comes to putting well-structured and reasoned argumentation together. The next couple of verses deserve special attention as we see Paul summarise the gospel and give a broad exposition of it before embarking in the next section (from verse 1:18 on)with in-depth explanation. It may seem that we are going torturously slowly, but if we get through these two verses then the foundation built here will allow for swifter progress thereafter. Anyway, Paul considers it necessary to tell these Christians (who don’t know much of the gospels workings), what it actually is from the off. It would come to them (as it did me) as excitingly good news indeed!

quote:

---

16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

​

17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith”.

---

I’ll use the verses from the King James version here as the wording highlights a very important point which is carried on throughout the epistle to the Romans and which helped me no end in following the bullet-proof nature of the argument. (as I hope it help you too, brother (for the sake of discussion) Larni ) It is the little word: ”for’ - at the very start of verse 16. ”For’ (or 'because') tells us that Paul is continuing from something he has said before. He is embarking on a new section alright, a summary, but it is linked to something he said prior to that. There is a thread running through any good argument. And Pauls is a very good argument. In this case, he has talked about how he is obligated to bring this good news to the gentile world and how he is eager to preach it to the Christians in Rome, the centre of the gentile universe at the time. Why does he feel obligated and eager we might ask? Well, he tells us in verse 16 with this ”for’ link: he is obligated and eager because he is not ashamed of the gospel. And ”not ashamed’ is another way (which will become plain as Paul elaborates in depth) of telling us that he is indeed very proud of the gospel. That he is excited and thrilled with it. That is why he wants to preach it everywhere. That is why he travels far and wide spreading this news.And the reason why he not ashamed, why he is proud and thrilled? Well, he links again with a ”for’. “..for (because) it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone that believeth" ...Jew and Gentile alike. This is, as we shall see, the gospel in a nutshell.Although proud and thrilled about the gospel, the way Paul puts it is in the negative: he is not ashamed of it. They are his words. He mentions this often enough. In a letter to a fellow evangelist of his day, Paul wrote:

quote:

---

2 Timothy 1:8. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God

---

There are natural reasons to be ashamed of the gospel. Reasons why a Christian would avoid testifying Christ and speaking out the gospel. Then as today. For as far as the world is concerned the gospel is complete and utter foolishness. A person who stands up and speaks of the gospel is the subject of ridicule. You only have to recall any number of posts here at EvC to see that. A Christian is considered an unenlightened fool, a weakling who fell hook, line and sinker for religious brainwashing as a child. Or a person who turned to a crutch in times of personal weakness and despair. Someone who can’t face reality and who seeks to hide his fears in a God invented by a bunch of nomads who roamed the desert a long time ago. Me? I am ashamed at times. Not here, in the relative anonymity of EvC, but out in real world where I hear people ridicule the gospel and Christ and say nothing in its or his defence: at work, amongst my non-Christian friends, wherever. No one likes being considered a fool. No one likes being the subject of ridicule. Peer approval is valued. There are reasons to be ashamed if one forgets what Paul says of the gospel in verse 16There are very good reasons not to be ashamed - when one pauses to consider it.As we will next.

GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANO

quote:

---

16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

​

17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith” (Habbakuk 2:4 - an OT prophet)

---

The headline points contained below can be extracted from verses 16 and 17 in the light of the argument Paul enters into from Romans 1:18 on:Reasons not to be ashamed of the gospel:The gospel is good newsThere is no reason to be ashamed of something that is good news for every person in the world. It makes no sense to be ashamed of it unless one has forgotten that fact, or forgotten the significance of that fact.The good news is good because it deals with mans salvationSalvation: safety, healing (salve), soundness, deliverance, health, wholeness - are some general notions of that word.In this context, salvation is inextricably linked with the Fall of man due to Adams sin. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”. Sin derives from an old archery expression meaning to “fall short of the target”. Falling short means the required target is not achieved. Salvation means being delivered from the consequences of the Fall (which means we cannot but fall short of the target). Consequences that affect everyone ever born (except one man). Salvation achieves many things:* We are (will be finally) delivered from all the effects of sin. Delivered from:
- our legal guilt before the Law (that we break when we sin)
- the wrath we would face as punishment for our sin
- the guilt within that we feel due to our sinning. We are and continue to be forgiven once saved
- the power sin has over us which renders us powerless to prevent our sinning.* We are reconciled with God:
God “walked with Adam in the cool of the garden”. The relationship was close and intimate then - that was the way God intended it to be. That relationship was destroyed by sin and man is at enmity with God (whether he thinks he is or not). He is under Gods wrath. The relationship between reconciled man and God becomes as it was intended to be: a personal one. The God who created you and all you see, relating to you on a personal, one-to-one basis. (Its probably just a sense of "peace beyond all understanding" at the moment for you though - as a young (for the sake of argument) believer...)* We have hope of glory:
A strange phrase, but what it means is that we are assured that we will live forever in Gods presence as adopted sons. There will be no wrath for those who are saved. And that can be known once one is saved - you don’t have to wait and worry to find out what’s going to happen to you. But don't worry if you don't know it just yet (for the sake of discussion).The opposite of salvation, damnation, can be extracted by opposites to the above:The gospel is Gods power unto salvation NOT mansThe gospel is not a philosophy. It is not a moral teaching. It is not an exhortation as to how we should live in order to get right with God. It doesn’t rely on our power. It isn’t just a message about what God has done in order that man would be saved. The gospel itself contains the power to save. This power is effective - it works. Philosophy, which is man expressing confidence in himself that he can rise above himself, that he can succeed against his own nature - has no power to do anything. Philosophy is just knowledge and knowledge won’t make a man do what is right, it won’t make him keep Gods law or act morally. Knowledge isn’t power. Knowledge has no power to do anything at all in and of itself.If applied to a man the gospel WILL save a man (as we shall see) simply because it has Gods unlimited power behind it. It cannot fail to save a man. The gospel is revealed by GodGod has a long history of revealing to man. It was God who revealed himself to Adam, God who called Abraham and told him he would make him a great nation, God who gave the kings and the prophets and the apostles, God who gave the law, God who sent his son to redeem those who the law condemned for their sin. The gospel is no different. It is a revelation from God. It is an announcement of what God has done in order that we would be saved. And how it is that God applies his way of salvation to us. An announcement - and one that contains power. The good news from God. The gospel is open to all men
As the Jews understood it, they were Gods chosen people and all others were excluded from his mercies. God revealed to the apostle Peter (Acts 10) that the way of salvation was open to gentiles too

quote:

---

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers (Jews) who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

---

So, the gospel applies to those without knowledge or access to Gods written law and who fail to meet the standard set out by it or those who do have access to it - and who fail to meet its standard. It can save the irreligious and the religious. There is in fact no actual difference between these people in Gods eyes. All are sinners and fall short of his standard. And no one, simply no one is a hopeless case. From the vilest, most repugnant sinner to the most respectable and decent - the gospel can save all: Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot - it only needs to be applied to a person for them to be saved.
.
.
.
.
.That’s it for now Larni. What do you reckon so far? Too detailed or not enough? Questions? Comments? Like to go on or halt? Don't worry if some of the terminology isn't clear just yet. Stuff like faith and righteousness and wrath etc will be covered as we go alongThere are a couple of other main points to be covered in these summation verses which I’ll get to when I can and then I’ll look to moving to the main exposition which starts in the next verse - where Paul starts out with the case proper. The first main section runs from 1:18 to 3:20 where he basically will be showing that all men need the gospel - for no man can do that which is necessary to save himself. It makes sense that he should do so when you think of it - as with any solution, the first thing a person needs to realise is that they have a problem.GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry Iano, I did not get an alert about your posts Pushed for time at the moment (presures of work etc). I will give a propper response as soon as I can.Hope you enjoyed your holiday!

No probs Larni. A slow burner is fine by me. Doing a piece here on Romans has been in my mind for some time - the cut and thrust of normal debate fragments the picture a lot. But remember, whenever/if ever you want out just say so. No sweat right?

GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOI mentioned above that Romans 16 and 17 represent a precursor/overview of what Paul is going to talk about in the section of the epistle we are dealing with. He is in effect, stating the theme of the letter. These verses form a preamble. A distilled down version of the gospel.

quote:

---

16: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

​

17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, “The just shall live by faith”

---

He did open these verses in an unusual way ("litotes" as it is called, apparently. Expressing something positive by putting it in the negative - "I am not ashamed of the gospel" .. meaning "I am proud and thrilled by it". We do it ourselves all the time when you think of it: "Now THAT is not a bad looking woman in the least!").Reasons not to be ashamed? A few more and we can finish with this opening and get into the exposition proper.
.
.
.
.
.To recap: there are, so far, 5 reasons not to be ashamed of the gospel, whether you are a Christian like Paul or whether you are a Christian who has been (similarily) given a desire (by God) to spread this good news. As a practical aside to a young (for the sake of this discussion) Christian: God had this purpose in mind with Paul... then. But the need hasn’t gone away in any way, shape or form - and so he puts that same desire into various people all the way to the present day.There are many things God can call a Christian to do - God has a purpose for everyone ever born. Me? I think it was reading a book on the (reasonably) likely environment of Hell that settled my mind on where it was my heart lay. I was completely and utterly depressed for two weeks solid - not because I am going there (I'm not) but that others, who I know and love will . unless the gospel is applied to them too. I hate waste and this seems so wasteful to me. God knows my soft spot it would seem.1. It is good news. There is little more to be said there.2. It deals with mans salvation. His eternal destiny. We are all, after all, going to die - one day.3. It is Gods own message - not just another, in fashion, man-sized philosophy.4. It has power, this message. It is effectual in and of itself (I’ll give you an example of this in order to illustrate, in the next post).5. It is not confined to one people or one time. It is for ALL people ever born, in any time: Old Testament or New Testament or beyond. It can be applied to everyone who has ever lived (bar one - who was not in need of it). Unlike Santa, it matters not whether you have been ”bad’ or ”good’. God knows we have all been 'bad'. Still more reasons "not to be ashamed":6. I said before that this was a revelation from God - at that time. This is not to be sniffed at in the least! For 4000 years up to that time (according to the minimum view), God revealed things to man. He has always dealt (or communicated) with mankind via man. Adam, King David, Joseph, Moses, all the prophets . even Jesus. In New Testament times?... Paul and Peter and James and Jude, etc., So when folk demand that “God Appear In The Sky and then I will believe” they are rubbing against the grain of the way it has always been. It's worth remembering that, there's a lot of it about.God’s way of salvation hasn’t changed one iota. It is something that was revealed - but “through a glass darkly” since Genesis. In the book of Acts (chapter 7), a man named Stephen stands up before the Sanhedrin (the ruling council, the members of which, had put Jesus to death weeks before) and argues from the self-same Old Testament that the Jews then held to be holy, God-revealed scripture. He argues that the OT itself says that Jesus is the very Messiah (or Saviour) the Jews themselves had awaited for a very long time. They awaited a powerful King - but overlooked the Old Testament which repeatedly stated that the Messiah would first arrive as a ”suffering servant’. Stephen was, in effect, expounding on the Old Testament in a different light that had long been held to be the case. The Jews weren't happy with his conclusions and stoned him to death. The first of many martyrs. This is worth bearing in mind when you read of folk dismissing the Reformation as “ not being something 1600 years of New Testament Church History holds to be the case”Jesus told the Jews then: “Your (OT) father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and was glad”In the last chapter of Romans, in verse 25, Paul says “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but is NOW made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to ALL nations for the obedience of faith” Gods way of salvation is now fully revealed.Take too, Paul writing to another embryonic church in the city of Ephisis (Ephesians 3 vs 3-6) were he says the same thing (and mentions here too, a gospel for all): “that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as (read: in the same way as )it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus”.There we have it. Fuller revelation, by God, at that time. Revelation of something that was already revealed - but only partially up to then. We have our own reasons for partially revealing things ourselves in time - so we should suppose nothing unreasonable in this)Oops . is that the time!The next post will finish off on verse 16-17. I Promise!GREAT DEBATE: LARNI AND IANOEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I completely take your point about being ashamed. It must be very hard to phrase ones convictions in a secular climate.I have one question however about Paul's interpretation of the OT: did he come to a personal judgement as to the intent of the words (different to the Pharisee interpretaion) or was his interpretation prescribed by Yahweh?

This is an assumption that the individual suffers guilt. It is not a universal experience to feel guilt. Interesting. What seems to come through very strongly is the view that ANY time spent in sin can erased by the power of the Gospel. I have seen versions of Christianity (such as Jar's) that imply that if we live a decent life we are saved but if we are wicked we will go to Hell (with an implication that there is a critical level of 'evility').I can see from your words that you do not believe that this is the case. Could we see a tactic use of this concept (by Paul) to at once destablize the iron grip of the Pharisees (of the legal LAW) and offer a 'way out' for people who have committed 'evil' acts (as defined by Pharisee law)? This allows for (at a grass roots level) Christianity to directly target the masses.I have an image of cells of Christianity being set with an in built sense of opposition to the incumbant 'legal' Pharisee dogma.Do you see this growing Christianity as a reaction to Pharisee oppression?

One does get weary at times with the ridicule and the same objections arising again and again but it just takes remembering that:- all the objections are ones raised oneself at some point in the past
- all the objections arise out of blindness mostly
- it is not my job to convert, only to present the information
- Jesus said to expect hatred due to the gospel..in order to continue. Generally I feel privileged to be used by God in this way (although I don't represent him well at times with my attitude). I was making the point earlier that although becoming a believer means a type of death of part of self, you don't change in essence of who you are. Same personality etc. I was an argumentitive type before. And I still am. Its just that now I try to structure the argument and focus on it and not argue for the sheer sake of it. I find the more I do that, the less the barbs get to me. I feel anguish at times and some frustration. But not because I take it personally. I just desire that others know him very much. For their sake and his glory. See it perhaps as a contrast between the view of a blind man and the view of a man who can see (hence the hymn: "Amazing Grace...was blind but now I see..") The man who can see, sees it as it is whereas the blind man gets a hazy notion of it at best. The man who can physically see is reliant on external light shining on an object in order to discern it. Similarily, a man needs Gods light to shine in order to see what the Bible is truly saying. The way it works (and which will be covered in this thread), is that God resides in the believer as Holy Spirit. He actually moves in and makes his home in the believer. And the Holy Spirits work (or part thereof), is to reveal to the believer the things of God.So, it is the latter of the two options you suggest. Not so much as Gods interpretation as what God meant in the first place. Whereas believers can go off track and allow their own interpretation to sit above that which the holy Spirit is revealing this is not the case with Paul. Paul was an apostle. There are no apostles nowadays. No need for them either. We have all the revelation that is necessary in the Bible.