Join us twice weekly in 5 Solas Bible Fellowship chat (PalTalk) - Monday and Thursday at 9pm eastern, for a live, audio study in the book of Romans.
For more info go here: http://carla_b.tripod.com/realfacts/id35.html
Thursday 09/02/04: Lesson 2:
The Gospel That Paul Preached
Romans 1:8-17
"SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
Gobsmacked - that's what I am.
I was just about to post for help to run a study in Romans at work! There's a "Christian" fellowship where I am working at the moment at the Environment Agency - all no doubt free-will advocates (they even allow an RC lady to 'fellowship' with them).
I offered to run a study in Romans so that I might speak about the true gospel of God's sovereign free grace and election and so on!
Then of course I realised how little I know! I need help!
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that I would tune in to these broadcasts since that would be two in the morning to me!However, I can download the MP3 files so thanks for this Carla.
Having said all that, I have read enough to know that there are various different interpretations of various parts of Romans so it is important not to rely solely upon the teachings of one man. To that end I thought it would be good if some of the more 'thorny' issues can be posted for discussion here. Perhaps someone who tunes in to the post-broadcast discussion could post appropriate topics here?
No reason to limit this just to what is discussed at Paltalk though so I'll set the ball rolling with something I'm grappling with
Romans 1:18-32 vs. Romans 2:1-9:
- Some say that chapter 1 is dealing with gentile, chapter 2 with Jew
- Others say chapter 1 reprobate and eternal wrath, chapter 2 elect and temporal wrath
- Others make chapter 1 god's temporal anger to all mankind revealed in the present world and chapter 2 eternal wrath for the 'unrepentant hearts'
- Others still make no distinction and treat both passages as dealing with elect and reprobate alike
What do you say AND why? Which commentary do you think best deals with these passages? I've read Gill and Henry and I'm just starting to pick my way through Calvin.
The first meeting I'll be leading is next Friday (10th) starting with Romans 1 so please help! I'd rather not start the study by admitting my ignorance of what is being taught here (not that this is a bad thing its just that I want to build credibility in anticipation of the difficulties we will encounter when we get into election
Martin
PS. Carla, what is your secret? I mean, you raise a family, run a small business and run several websites, contributing much of their content - where do you find the time?
Chapter 1:18-32 is dealing primarily with Gentiles but it does have other applications as well especially to the unchurched. It is showing that nobody is left with excuse even if they have had no contact with the Gospel. Romans 2 very explicitly speaks of both Jews and Greeks so I don't know why someone would argue that it refers only to Jews. All are inexcusable but the judgment will be heavier for the churched (Jews) than for the unchurched (Gentiles). I would encourage you to take a step back and just read through the passage on your own a couple times first before consulting anymore commentaries. I think the passages are pretty plain. They were written largely to new Christians who were converts from heathendom. Commentaries can be helpful in showing the richness of the passages however. I have more commentaries on Romans than any other book of the Bible. Calvin can certainly be helpful, I haven't used Gill much on Romans but I would imagine he would be pretty good overall. Here's my list of favorites:
1. Herman Hoeksema Righteous By Faith Alone. http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=4 This is a devotional commentary taken from a series of sermons Hoeksema preached on Romans. It is very rich and would be very suitable in helping someone lead a Bible study. The downside is that every single verse is not covered. This is the best theological commentary on the book.
2. William Hendriksen. http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...=AFF&p=1011938 This is perhaps the best of the modern commentaries on Romans that goes verse by verse. I certainly have disagreements with it at places but fewer than any other verse by verse commentary. He does an excellent job dealing with passages like Romans 11:26.
3. C.E.B. Cranfield. This is basically Cranfield's 2 vol. commentary from the ICC series minus all the technical Greek notes. http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...N&item_code=WW Cranfield is a master of the Greek and works this well into his commentary.
4. Douglas Moo. http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...N&item_code=WW This has become the standard evangelical commentary. I'm not as thrilled with it as the evangelical church world is but it is helpful in that it adresses those who hold to the "new perspective."
5. Thomas Schreiner. http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2....ArCUQZUauijTGA This volume is very good overall. It is written by a baptist and can be helpful in looking at passages from a different angle.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Thanks WB, very thorough as usual. That should keep me busy for some time!
I did read it through before I consulted any commentaries. On my own I came to position 3. It was only when BT posted his view as being the exact opposite in the 'importance' thread that I started consulting commentaries where I found the other explanations. At the moment they all seem to have various merits but I need to study it more carefully. The links you have posted will certainly help.
Martin
Last edited by Skeuos Eleos; 09-02-2004 at 05:47 PM.
Martin, I'm probably not the best person to ask this question of. When I read this, I see people in general, being spoken of. ch1.vs.18 says "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men". There is no distinction made there, of Jew, Gentile, or anything else except ungodliness and unrighteousness. I could be dead wrong, and maybe the contrast is Jew/Gentile, Elect/Reprobate - I'm not really sure. But, chapter 2:9-11 seem to indicate that it IS speaking to people in general, and not really making a distinction toward anything other than godliness/ungodliness, and righteous/unrighteous. I just leave it at that for now - maybe I'll have a better answer after we go through this study. We're also starting this book in Sunday school this coming Sunday, so it will be nice to have even more insight into this question. I would like to see more input on these sections (on the forum here) as we study them, that might help too.Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
No reason to limit this just to what is discussed at Paltalk though so I'll set the ball rolling with something I'm grappling with
Romans 1:18-32 vs. Romans 2:1-9:
- Some say that chapter 1 is dealing with gentile, chapter 2 with Jew
- Others say chapter 1 reprobate and eternal wrath, chapter 2 elect and temporal wrath
- Others make chapter 1 god's temporal anger to all mankind revealed in the present world and chapter 2 eternal wrath for the 'unrepentant hearts'
- Others still make no distinction and treat both passages as dealing with elect and reprobate alike
What do you say AND why? Which commentary do you think best deals with these passages? I've read Gill and Henry and I'm just starting to pick my way through Calvin.
As for commentaries - I have a general rule I follow. I avoid them all, until or unless I get to a brick wall, and then I check them to compare. Dr. Johnson seems to be giving the text a very fair treatment in presenting several different, short "opinions" from different commentators/theologians, so that's also helpful. It's hard to completely stay away from commentary, even in listening to the lessons.
Well... the thing is, I am the world's most organized mother, and I plan every waking moment right down to the second, and allot myself certain blocks of time each day, to persue each need. LOL!!!PS. Carla, what is your secret? I mean, you raise a family, run a small business and run several websites, contributing much of their content - where do you find the time?
As you might remember, we homeschool, and school starts here next Tuesday - so that does reduce my leisure time quite a bit. Odd as it may sound, we're all looking forward to summer being over, and getting back into a more regimented routine around here. In a family this size - routines work better than summer vacation, lol. (Remind me I said that, come June 1st and I'm looking forward to 3 months of vacation).
"SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
For those of you who have not been able to join us in chat for these studies - or have not downloaded them for yourself, you are missing a GREAT blessing.
I would encourage you to join us - or download them.
in Him,
Carla
"SOLA SCRIPTURA… GRATIA… FIDE… CHRISTUS… DEO GLORIA" Scripture alone, being our final authority, teaches us that salvation is by grace His grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
Re: Study in Romans
Solid biblical research:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.e...t._paul.01.htm
Re: Study in Romans
From the above link!
The love and justice of God have been revealed once and for all in Christ by the destruction of the devil and the deliverance of man from the body of death and sin, so that man may actually become an imitator of God Himself, Who has predestined His elect to become "conformed to the image of His Son," who did nothing to please Himself but suffered for others. Christ died so that the living should no longer live unto themselves, but should become perfect men, even "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Christians are no longer to live according to the rudiments of this world, as though living in this world, but are to have the same mind as Christ, so that in Christ they may become perfect. Men are no longer to love their wives according to the world, but must love their wives exactly "as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it." The destiny of man is not happiness and self-satisfaction, but rather perfection in Christ. Man must become perfect, as God and Christ are perfect. such perfection can come only through the personalistic power of divine and selfless love, "which is the bond of perfection." This love is not to be confused with the love of fallen man who seeks his own. Love in Christ does not seek its own, but that of the other.
sTT are you saying you agree with these or dont you agree,reading through original sin of adam passing to all mankind is denied in this article, what do you think of original sin sTT do you think that you from your natural birth where born in sin. Thanks Ivor Thomas..
I will let sTT answer Ivor's question.
Martin, I've had some things on my mind on this but just didn't get the time to 'write it down on paper' yet.
Outline of Romans:
Intro: Paul's Eagerness to Preach the Gospel to all Nations (1:1-15)
Thesis: The Gospel of Salvation (Involving a Righteousness Received through Faith) to both Jew and Gentile (1:16-17)
The FIRST Argument Exalting the Gospel (the foundation): The Universal Sinfulness of Mankind (1:18-3:20)
The fact that none can be just in their own person and character is the foundational truth necessary to exalt the grace of God: who provides a free gift of justification in Christ's person and work; entirely apart from the participation of any created human being.
NOTE: My view of Rom. 1:18-32 (that it is describing reprobation as a unique manifestation of universal evil) does not detract from this overall theme. The point is not that reprobation exists only among the gentiles--but that certain present manifestations of God's wrath among the nations are a foretaste of the judgment to come.
The SECOND Argument Exalting the Gospel (the building): Justification by Faith without the Deeds of the Law (3:21-8:27)
This is the heart and essence of Paul's gospel. The points to be made are legion--but this whole passage is on this one argument; viewed from different perspectives. However, it is not the final and crowning argument.
The THIRD and FINAL Argument Exalting the Gospel (the crown): Divine Election Before the Foundation of the World (8:28-11:27)
A gospel without election is like a house with no ceiling; no roof. It will not shield against and withstand the stormy attacks of the enemy.
Closing Ethical Implications of the Gospel (12:1-15:33)
Final Salutations (ch. 16)
I know this is only a few remarks and wish I had time to say more right now. May the Lord bless your study for him.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Re: Study in Romans
We ARE born with "original sin." Definitely. And since there is much to say on that I'll get back to it.sTT are you saying you agree with these or dont you agree,reading through original sin of adam passing to all mankind is denied in this article, what do you think of original sin sTT do you think that you from your natural birth where born in sin. Thanks Ivor Thomas..
We are NOT born with an abstraction, a "guilt." God's justice is to love and forgive us. But that would not do us all the good we need. We are bound and enslaved by original sin. We need more. We are not born with guilt. But we are "born in sins" as Ps 51 says. Sins are corporate and sins are individual. (We are messed up puppies.)
We ARE born with the consequences of original sin too. Sin brought death. Death leads to more sin...death...sin...death...sin...death...sin...de ath...sin... (You get the picture.) Even kids cheeting in school is linked to their fear of their own mortality. (My ten year old pointed that out to his naive dad!)
A LOT is really and truly PASSED ON from generation to generation. But guilt is not. We are only "quilty" of our own sins. (The heresy of the Immaculate Conception has been remarked to be the carrying of Augustine's notion of guilt to its logical end. I can't say anything on that, however.)
But we inherit the consequences of original sin.
Sure as shoot'n!
(We need Jesus!!!!!)
sTT states:
We are NOT born with an abstraction, a "guilt." God's justice is to love and forgive us. But that would not do us all the good we need. We are bound and enslaved by original sin. We need more. We are not born with guilt. But we are "born in sins" as Ps 51 says. Sins are corporate and sins are individual. (We are messed up puppies.)
We ARE born with the consequences of original sin too. Sin brought death. Death leads to more sin...death...sin...death...sin...death...sin...de ath...sin... (You get the picture.) Even kids cheeting in school is linked to their fear of their own mortality. (My ten year old pointed that out to his naive dad!)
A LOT is really and truly PASSED ON from generation to generation. But guilt is not. We are only "quilty" of our own sins. (The heresy of the Immaculate Conception has been remarked to be the carrying of Augustine's notion of guilt to its logical end. I can't say anything on that, however.)
These arguments are a very good illustration of the difference between sincere biblical exegesis (affirming the legitimacy of the exercise of the mind) and paradox theology. I will not try to expound on all the paradoxes in this 'treatise.' I will only say that if God is sovereign, he has the perfect right to determine guilt and redemption. We have NO right to affirm that God is unjust in imputing guilt and rebellion where there is no 'free-will' determination of sinless beings, with no proclivity to rebel.
If God has purposes of reprobation AT ALL that are the opposite of salvation, these arguments are spurious and irrelevant. I believe that most here will affirm this truth.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
God's rights... Hmm....
God loves the world... God's "justice" is forgiveness and life.
The REAL issue behind juridically driven theory is that there is an underlying notion that God is CONTROLLED by some outside "justice" that he has to life up to....that limits his mercy and forgiveness.
God has "rights." And THAT is the point!
But scripture says that God is "not willing that any should perish." "God so loved the world..."
God does not "purpose reprobation." (That is a demonic notion.)
STT
Wow, I guess I'm "demonic". I have a series of questions for you sTT. Would you please answer them for me? Keep answering until you come to a question where you answer "no."
1. Did God purpose to elect some men to salvation? Answer "Yes" to continue.
2. If God did purpose to elect some men to salvation as you say, then did He foresee their election in eternity before the foundation of the world?
3. If God did foresee the election of some men to salvation as you say, then did He foresee the reprobation of others as well?
4. If He did foresee the reprobation of some before the foundation of the world, then did He consider their reprobation before creation? If yes, then you pass! You get to go to the next set of questions!
---
5. Would you agree with this statement? Anything that occurs in time must fall into one of these four categories (a) Predestined or purposed by God in eternity to take place and the event does occur. (b) Purposed by God in eternity to NOT be done, and the event does occur. (c) It was NOT purposed by God to happen but the event occurred anyway. (d) God never considered the event in the positive or the negative.
6. If d is true, would you not say that God is surprised thus proving d to be false? Answer yes to proceed.
8. If c is true then would you not say that God purposed some things and others are not? Answer yes to proceed.
9. If some things are purposed by God in eternity and others are not, then would you say that God THOUGHT about these things that were not purposed by God? In other words I mean, if some things are running around in time that were not purposed or predestinated by God, wouldn't God have to consider these things to keep them from bumping into the things that He did purpose in eternity? If you answered yes, go to question 10. If you answered no, go to question 11.
10. If you answered yes to 9, that is you affirm that God thought or considered these non-purposed or non-predestinated events in eternity, then how can you avoid saying that God did not purpose or predestinate the reprobation of some souls to hell because the Bible says in Isaiah 14:24 that, "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass..."
11. If God did not think about events in time that were not purposed by Him in eternity, then how is it they come to pass if He didn't think about them? How do you answer Isaiah 14:24, "The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass..." Should it be rephrased to say, "Surely as I have thought and have not thought, so shall it come to pass?" Further how is that God did not think about things He did not foresee since you answered yes to question 3 and 4?
If you didn't make it to question number 10 or 11, please tell me what question you stopped at so we can continue the debate from there. Thank you!
Brandan
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
Allow me to post these two verses:
Try to find the contrast between the "elect chosen generation" and the "appointed to doom". Then, draw your own conclusion...
1 Pet 2:8-9, (KJV)
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
Good answers (and questions, Brandan) GA and DG!
Responses to sTT:
God loves the world... God's "justice" is forgiveness and life.
Agreed, on the SALVATION SIDE of God's purposes. But if one proposes that this love, justice, forgiveness, and life extend to all without exception; all must be saved. Otherwise God is powerless and frustrated. This notion of a Deity that wants all persons to be saved but somehow CAN'T DO IT is a complete denial of God's sovereignty.
The REAL issue behind juridically driven theory is that there is an underlying notion that God is CONTROLLED by some outside "justice" that he has to life up to....that limits his mercy and forgiveness.
I have faithfully condemned 'eternal law' philosophy on this forum again and again. I fully agree that God is not controlled by any outside justice that limits his mercy and forgiveness. If God does not elect all persons to salvation, it is because he does not wish to. Not because he owes any of his actions to an abstract eternal law.
Scripture affirms the reality of the reprobation of billions. So God purposes and wants this reprobation. He laughs at the calamity of the reprobate. He, along with all elect angels and human saints, will celebrate the downfall and punishment of the reprobate forever. Hallelujah, their smoke ascendeth forever and ever! (Rev. 19:3)
God has "rights." And THAT is the point!
Ah! God has no need to argue his rights as the sovereign one before any creature. Neither do we have any right to complain if he has predestined billions to damnation. If we fail to praise him for the act of electing and creating very large multitudes to reprobation, we attempt to cast disrepute upon his glory and count ourselves among the rebels against his divine authority and rights. None of us puny mortals has any right to complain about what God has purposed is right to magnify his glory--in his own wisdom.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Bob,
Thanks for your notes on Romans. Sorry for the delayed reply. I was out of town on business this week (which turned out to be a couple of days ill in bed in a hotel room instead - which itself turned out to be a blessing
I am in fact coming round to your view of Romans 1:18-32 - that God's wrath or anger manifested to the present world in terms of the things He 'gives men over to' is a kind of temporal foretaste of the eternal wrath to come, perhaps, in part, to act as a kind of warning to God's Elect.
I'm still pondering Romans 2. I think it is critical of what might be termed the pharisaical or judgemental spirit - you who think you're not like the others who have plunged into such outward depravity, well, you're just as bad, because you commit these sins in your heart, if not in your body. I do quite like Martin Luther's comments on this in his introduction to Romans, although I don't think it just applies to the Jews as he does:
Anyway, the study I am running at work hasn't got this far yet! We had the first one yesterday and I found enough to keep us busy just on chapter 1 verse 1 !!
That said, only one person actually turned up after a couple of others had to give their apologies! It is reassuring however to know that God is in control and clearly needed to protect people from my poor attempts at leading!
Perhaps I should post the study here for comment?
Martin
Martin
Last edited by Skeuos Eleos; 09-11-2004 at 06:05 PM.
Thanks for the interaction, Martin and I'm glad to hear that the Lord brought you through last week in his own way and wisdom!
Yes, starting with Romans 2:1 I believe that Paul focuses on the specific sins of religion as opposed to the sins of reprobation in ch. 1 . He is not saying that all religious people are reprobate (though certainly many are). But all religious people are condemned by the Law and deserving of God's wrath. I think the notion of Paul in Rom. 2 is that religion, far from being honorable, good, and making mankind better--is dishonorable, evil, and makes mankind worse.
Perhaps I should post the study here for comment?
That would be great!
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Re: Study in Romans
From your #1, which could be read a number of ways, you shifted by #3 to a position that PLACES GOD WITHIN TIME.
YOU'RE HALF WAY TO BECOMING AN "OPEN THEIST."
(Turn around...you are going the wrong way!)
[QUOTE=BillTwisse]I have faithfully condemned 'eternal law' philosophy on this forum again and again. ...[QUOTE]
Bill, you are interesting to read. Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks