Romans 4:4-5 - A Challenge to Traditional View

[Drew]

Perhaps my wording was unclear. Let me try to be clear:

1. I do not believe that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. We are not considered by God to, in any sense, as having the righteousness that Christ has. God does not look at us and "see Jesus". There is no sense in which a characteristic or property of Jesus Christ has been transferred over to us.

2. I believe we do obtain a status of righteousness. It is the status of the one who has been declared to be "in the right" in the context of the Hebrew lawcourt. No other person's righteousness was imputed to OJ Simpson when he was (sadly) acquitted. He was simply declared to be "in the right".

3. I do believe in the principle of atonement, but, and this is key, there is no necessity for someone else's righteousness to be imputed to me in order for me to be benefit from atonement. For the present, I will simply make this claim and ask to consider that there is indeed a sense in which atonement can be said to have occurred without the necessity for some other person's righteousness being ascribed to me. We need to avoid circular arguments - assuming that atonement necessitates imputed righteousness. In other words, we need to be careful to not mix up the reformer's conceptualization of atonement with what Paul actually says.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Simply stated it is Christ that lives within me.

Period. The End.

Sorry Drew, you are reading too much of NT Wright and not enough of the New Testament.

The imputed righteousness of Christ is not a "reformation" theology. It is biblical doctrine. You choose to ignore it.

You have nullified the Gospel of Grace, and I pray that you do not stand accursed as Paul warns.

 

[Vic C.]

Ugh, let me come at you from a different perspective. I thought I was clear about the distinction between wisdom and righteousness.

Where else does the word wisdom appear? 1 Corinthians 12, the "spiritual gifts" chapter. Wisdom here is declared as a spiritual gift. Applying a similar logic as yours, righteousness, sanctification and redemption should also be spiritual gifts, but they're not and their not mentioned in the chapter 12 passage.

Eh, forget it. I agree with Rad. I don't even recognize your form of redemption. It seems as though you and others don't need the Cross and what happened at the Cross. You want somehow to achieve righteousness own your own. Been there, done that; it is what has led me to the Cross in the first place.

GTG, workday is over. 8-)

 

[Drew]

I don't even recognize your form of redemption. It seems as though you and others don't need the Cross and what happened at the Cross.

Well I do not know who you are talking about but it certainly is not me. I have never said that the cross is not necessary. I have never said anything that would lead a person to legitimately infer that the cross is not necessary. Perhaps I have not explained how the cross is situated in this view as well and as fully as possible.

But, and this is a matter of great import to me - I have never said anything that would justify the conclusion that you are expressing.

You want somehow to achieve righteousness own your own.

This is a patent misrepresentation of what I have written. It is a completely false characterisation of my position. On this particular matter, I have been clear and repetitive to the point of annoyance.

Please do not misrepresent me.

 

[unred typo]

I don't even recognize your form of redemption. It seems as though you and others don't need the Cross and what happened at the Cross.

Well I do not know who you are talking about but it certainly is not me. I have never said that the cross is not necessary. I have never said anything that would lead a person to legitimately infer that the cross is not necessary. Perhaps I have not explained how the cross is situated in this view as well and as fully as possible.

But, and this is a matter of great import to me - I have never said anything that would justify the conclusion that you are expressing.

[quote="vic C.":2a5d5]You want somehow to achieve righteousness own your own.

This is a patent misrepresentation of what I have written. It is a completely false characterisation of my position. On this particular matter, I have been clear and repetitive to the point of annoyance.

Please do not misrepresent me.[/quote:2a5d5]


Just as I have been baffled as to how to explain the way of salvation any better than I have done, I have to marvel that your excellent explanation has not been understood either, Drew. Apparently, though you can see their view in scripture and compare it to your interpretation of the same scripture, they can only see what they believe and are blind as to how your view can even be found compatible with the Bible. There is a difference between ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘turning a deaf ear’ but some people can’t make that distinction. There first has to be a willing heart before there can be an understanding heart. :-?

 

[RadicalReformer]

[quote="vic C.":6f597]I don't even recognize your form of redemption. It seems as though you and others don't need the Cross and what happened at the Cross.

Well I do not know who you are talking about but it certainly is not me. I have never said that the cross is not necessary. I have never said anything that would lead a person to legitimately infer that the cross is not necessary. Perhaps I have not explained how the cross is situated in this view as well and as fully as possible.

But, and this is a matter of great import to me - I have never said anything that would justify the conclusion that you are expressing.

[quote="vic C.":6f597]You want somehow to achieve righteousness own your own.

This is a patent misrepresentation of what I have written. It is a completely false characterisation of my position. On this particular matter, I have been clear and repetitive to the point of annoyance.

Please do not misrepresent me.[/quote:6f597]


Just as I have been baffled as to how to explain the way of salvation any better than I have done, I have to marvel that your excellent explanation has not been understood either, Drew. Apparently, though you can see their view in scripture and compare it to your interpretation of the same scripture, they can only see what they believe and are blind as to how your view can even be found compatible with the Bible. There is a difference between ‘turning the other cheek’ and ‘turning a deaf ear’ but some people can’t make that distinction. There first has to be a willing heart before there can be an understanding heart. :-?[/quote:6f597]

Why should one waste their time trying to understand that which is not Scriptural? :crazyeyes:

 

[unred typo]

Why should one waste their time trying to understand that which is not Scriptural? :crazyeyes:

Because it is scriptural. No wonder you can't see it with those eyes. What you teach is not what Jesus taught. You think it’s what Paul taught but it’s not even what Paul was trying to say. Jesus said if you do not from your hearts forgive every man his brother, neither will your heavenly father forgive you. You say that’s a lie. You say you were already saved when you made your true confession of faith, and that God already forgave you all your sins, even the ones you haven’t repented of, let alone committed yet. You are so blind, you cannot see this is a contradiction of what Jesus said. You are denying the very Lord who bought you. You ignore the fact that Jesus is going to put those who didn’t take care of the starving and poor on his left in the judgment and they will be sent away into everlasting death and those who loved their neighbors, into everlasting life. You ignore the great commission to teach what he taught of love, forgiveness, righteousness and humility and tell people that it is not essential for salvation.

What you say can be found in scripture, but that doesn’t make it scriptural. If it contradicts what Jesus taught, it’s wrong. Paul taught what Jesus taught, and not what you claim his epistles say. The poor man is probably spinning in his grave.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Why should one waste their time trying to understand that which is not Scriptural? :crazyeyes:

Because it is scriptural. No wonder you can't see it with those eyes. What you teach is not what Jesus taught. You think it’s what Paul taught but it’s not even what Paul was trying to say. Jesus said if you do not from your hearts forgive every man his brother, neither will your heavenly father forgive you. You say that’s a lie. You say you were already saved when you made your true confession of faith, and that God already forgave you all your sins, even the ones you haven’t repented of, let alone committed yet. You are so blind, you cannot see this is a contradiction of what Jesus said. You are denying the very Lord who bought you. You ignore the fact that Jesus is going to put those who didn’t take care of the starving and poor on his left in the judgment and they will be sent away into everlasting death and those who loved their neighbors, into everlasting life. You ignore the great commission to teach what he taught of love, forgiveness, righteousness and humility and tell people that it is not essential for salvation.

What you say can be found in scripture, but that doesn’t make it scriptural. If it contradicts what Jesus taught, it’s wrong. Paul taught what Jesus taught, and not what you claim his epistles say. The poor man is probably spinning in his grave.

You like to put a lot of words into other people's mouths.

Back on iggy you go!

 

[unred typo]

quote by RadicalReformer:
You like to put a lot of words into other people's mouths.

Back on iggy you go!

Actually, I was just expressing the traditional view. If that is not what you believe, why don’t you tell me how your view is different and not just cover your ears and say “La la laâ€Â? Now that I try to recall what you said you do believe, I realize you have been very cozy about the details of your theology. Instead of quoting scripture to prove your point, you merely declare the truth to be unscriptural. Fine, put me on your “iggy listâ€Â. I love it there. Makes you as blind to what I say as you apparently are to what scripture says. For your own sake, sneak a peek at scripture too. 8-)

 

[Vic C.]

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some of you need to read this explanation regarding God's plan of salvation:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/plan.html

You see, the problem here is you really don't understand what happened at the Cross. It seems to baffle you that God really paid for your now saved souls by providing the blood of HIS only begotten Son and to serve as the final sacrificial Lamb. In the OT, they were instructed to sacrifice and brush the blood around the door and it's door posts. That was their involvement in the passing over of death.

This time, God has done it all, without our help. We did nothing! It was once and for all.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

You sit here, scratching your heads, looking through Scripture for something, anything, you can add to your salvation, ignoring the obvious teaching that it is impossible for man to achieve this:

Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Jesus isn't just teaching what must be done; He's teaching that man alone cannot do it! If it were possible, we wouldn't need a Savior. If it were necessary to do something after Jesus was sacrificed, His death was in vain. When someone buys us a gift, do we then go to the store and try to pay for it a second time?

Adam tried to please God on his own after he realized he had sinned against The Almighty:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons....

... Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

God had to accomplish this' what Adam tried to do just wasn't good enough. So, if it wasn't good enough then, why should it be good enough now>

Stop trying to do on your own and let God do the good works in you.

You really want to understand God's redemptive plan for man, start at Genesis 1:1 and keep reading...

 

[unred typo]

quote by vic C.:
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Some of you need to read this explanation regarding God's plan of salvation:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/plan.html

You see, the problem here is you really don't understand what happened at the Cross. It seems to baffle you that God really paid for your now saved souls by providing the blood of HIS only begotten Son and to serve as the final sacrificial Lamb. In the OT, they were instructed to sacrifice and brush the blood around the door and it's door posts. That was their involvement in the passing over of death.

This time, God has done it all, without our help. We did nothing! It was once and for all.

That’s right, Vic. I agree. We do not pay for our sin with our own blood. We also have nothing to give to pay for eternal life. Eternal life is an undeserved reward for obedience to Christ. Just as you might give your son a car of his own for getting good grades and showing responsibility, God gives eternal life to those who follow the teaching of Christ. Do the good grades and good behavior pay for the car? No. Parents are not obligated to give cars in reward for obedience and hard work. Did you go to the car dealership and tell them that he’s been so good, he deserves that car in the showroom free of charge? No, you paid the full price for the car, so he didn’t have to. Does that mean he would get the car if he has poor grades and acts irresponsibly? Neither will we get eternal life if we do not obey Christ and walk after the Spirit, doing good and loving one another as he taught.

quote by vic C.:
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;


You sit here, scratching your heads, looking through Scripture for something, anything, you can add to your salvation, ignoring the obvious teaching that it is impossible for man to achieve this:

Stop right there. I do not add my good works to the sacrifice of Christ. His blood will cover completely all my sins that I confess and repent of. What are my sins, Vic? Failures to obey God and love one another. If I don’t repent of my failure to obey God and love one another, does his blood cover my sin? (Be careful how you answer that, since we do not allow for UR in this forum.) Let me assume your answer is “noâ€Â. Only those who repent of their failure to obey God and love one another are forgiven this sin of failure to obey God and love one another. With me so far? Now, if I have truly repented of my disobedience to God, and my lack of love for my fellow man, how will that be manifest in my life? By good works and obedience to God. My good works are the manifestation of my true repentance and desire to obey God, not the payment for my sin, but without them, I will not be saved.

quote by vic C.:
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


Jesus isn't just teaching what must be done; He's teaching that man alone cannot do it! If it were possible, we wouldn't need a Savior. If it were necessary to do something after Jesus was sacrificed, His death was in vain. When someone buys us a gift, do we then go to the store and try to pay for it a second time?

Out of context. Jesus is specifically saying that the man who loves his riches would find it impossible to do what it takes to be saved. Read the previous verses:

20The young man said unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is a theme repeated in other places:

James 5
1Go to now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten.
3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days.

You cannot serve God and mammon. Why do you suppose this gospel is rejected? Men love their wealth more than their fellowman or God.

quote by vic C.:
Adam tried to please God on his own after he realized he had sinned against The Almighty:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons....

... Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

God had to accomplish this' what Adam tried to do just wasn't good enough. So, if it wasn't good enough then, why should it be good enough now>

Adam tried to please God? C’mon Vic. He was afraid and tried to cover his nakedness, and he hid from God and he passed the blame on his wife when he was confronted, instead of confessing his sin. He and Eve chose to know not only good but good and evil, so God gave them their wish. When we learn to hate evil as God does, we get to go on to only good. Do you hate evil, Vic?

quote by vic C.:
Stop trying to do on your own and let God do the good works in you.

You really want to understand God's redemptive for man, start at Genesis 1:1 and keep reading...
John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

You know, Vic, it sounds really tempting. Let God do it all. What? Me worry? Naw, it’s been done. Relax. You shall surely not die…

 

[Drew]

Why should one waste their time trying to understand that which is not Scriptural? :crazyeyes:

Where, precisely, does the argument that I have presented fail scripturally?

Which of your counterarguments have not been fully addressed? In other words, do you believe that you have presented scriptural evidence against the position I am arguing? Let's revisit and see what the scriptures say.

 

[Drew]

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The problem is that there really are a variety of different ways to legitimately read this verse and others like it. People in the reformation tradition come to the verse with a certain interpretive framework already in place and then, not surprisingly they see it as endorsing that very position. More specifically, they see it as confirming the assertion that when Jesus died on the cross, the result was that all past, present, and future sins were forever erased for the person, who, at a specific point in time, placed genuine faith in Jesus.

It is an appealing notion.

It is a "simple" notion, easily understood.

However, I think the scriptural evidence speaks strongly against it. And I think Romans 2:7 is the Achilles' heel of this position. All attempts to "explain" Romans 2:7 without a works-based judgement that results in eternal life have, I would suggest, rather obviously failed. But I am happy to revisit any of these. They all really amount to "Paul did not really mean what he says". Hmmmmm.

Returning to Hebrews 10:10. This text could easily be read as something like this: "God has acted once for all in redemptive history, fulfilling the covenant for our benefit through the offering of His Son, Jesus"

Do you see the difference? In the interpretation that I believe that Vic seems to be advocating, he sees "once for all" as referring to the "life timeline" of the individual believer - that what has been accomplished - our personal justification - cannot be overturned.

If so, why does the author in the very same chapter, write the following:

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God

This sounds very much like Romans 2 language - all will be judged on their works, with eternal life indeed at stake.

My take on Hebrews 10:10 is that the "once for all" refers to the timeline of redemptive history, not the individual life timelines of each believer. In other words, the covenant has been fulfilled, once and for all, through the faithfulness of the Davidic Messiah Jesus.

I suggest that this reading is much more consonant with the verses that precede it:

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I amâ€â€it is written about me in the scrollâ€â€
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second.

Is this not obviously a timeline that describes the sweep of redemptive history, not the lifeline of the individual believer? Therefore, why take "once for all" as indicating a "fait accompli" in the life of each person, when a different timeline altogether is actually in view.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - the first 3 chapters of Romans is Paul building a legal case.

Basically Romans 2 is Paul explaining the impartiality of God... He is using God as a "character witness" if you will and showing the character of God.

There is nothing to suggest in the text that Romans 2:7 is HOW salvation is accomplished. Romans 2:7 is speaking to that person which already believes.. in other words, the person that has already been justified through their belief.

 

[Drew]

Drew - the first 3 chapters of Romans is Paul building a legal case.

I think that the first three chapters of Romans is more correctly thought of as a chronology, although not only that. What is the chronology about? It is about the covenant and how God has remained faithful to it. In chapter 1 we have explicit reference to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah - covenantal language:

2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,...

In chapter 1, verse 17, we have further evidence that Paul is concerned with God's righteousness - and to the Jewish mind, this will mean his faithfulness to the covenant:

17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed,

I suspect you will claim that here Paul is talking about an imputed righteousness. No time to get into that, although it has already been addressed.

Paul arguably then goes on to make allusion to the fall:

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

Again, the early chapters of Romans are more properly thought of primarily as covenant history, and only secondarily as a legal matter.

In Romans 2, Paul jumps to a treatment of a future works-based judgement for all. I am more than happy to continue to address how Paul means what he says in Romans 2, but not in this particular post.

In Romans 3, Paul makes reference to the fact that the Jews have not been faithful to the covnenant and yet how God will fulfill the covenant even though the covenant partner has dropped the ball:

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

And of course the answer is "no". How has God fulfilled the covenant, given the faith-lessness of the Jew? Has he abandoned the covenant. No he has not. He has found a faithful Israelite - one who truly represents his people and will fulfill what was to have been their destiny.

Here I give my own version of what I claim is a perfectly legitimate rendering of Romans 3:21-22:

But now, in the present time, God's covenant faithfulness has been revealed, apart from law, but witnessed by the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness behaviour on the part of God is manifested through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and this accrues to the benefit of all who believe.

I think Romans 1 through 4 is primarily a covenant history and not a legal case. There are allusions to the lawcourt, but these are subservient to the more primary covenental theme.

People either don't or won't see this covenant history theme in Romans. Another place where the history of the covenant is even more clearly in view is Romans 9 and 10, which is another retelling of the covenant history.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Drew - what is the point of discussion? It appears that you are only going to accept those posts which concur with you.

Yes, I realize that you can say the same thing back to me.. however, I never suggested that I wanted a discussion about this topic - you did.

 

[unred typo]

Drew - what is the point of discussion? It appears that you are only going to accept those posts which concur with you.

Yes, I realize that you can say the same thing back to me.. however, I never suggested that I wanted a discussion about this topic - you did.

Drew made a challenge to the traditional view, then he backed it up with scripture, which has yet to be refuted. Now you’re suggesting that he back down and admit you must be right just because you can’t prove him to be scripturally wrong? What’s up with that? Are you asking what is the point of challenging the traditional view? How about because it’s wrong?

p.s. You have made it clear that you don't want to discuss this topic, but only came in to disrupt it.

 

[Drew]

Drew - what is the point of discussion? It appears that you are only going to accept those posts which concur with you.

I really do not understand what you are saying here. I am advocating a specific position, I defend and argue for it. I try to make my arguments as free from "rhetoric" as possible. Are you simply expecting me to take your "say-so" as to what the various texts mean?

 

[Drew]

There is nothing to suggest in the text that Romans 2:7 is HOW salvation is accomplished. Romans 2:7 is speaking to that person which already believes.. in other words, the person that has already been justified through their belief.

I must admit that I am indeed baffled by this statement. The texts clearly say that eternal life is at stake:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

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

Are you saying, in respect to verse 7 for example, that eternal life is given based on something other than "persistence in doing good"? That is not what the text says. With that kind of "loose" reading, one can make almost anything mean something else.

What kind of person would write:

"To those who do X, God will give Y"

and intend the reader to think that Y is given based on something other than X?

What kind of person would write:

"Those who do X will be declared Y"

and intend the reader to think that the declaration of Y is based on something other than X.

And, worse yet, what writer would do that two times in a row.

And, worse yet, what kind of a writer would do that in the context of a teaching which he has introduced as follows:

...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

 

[RadicalReformer]

What I am saying Drew is you are plucking verses without paying attention to the greater context of the paragraph, the chapter, and the entire book.