-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Reba
Miscommunication. Sorry about that.
Look below where it says “+Reply to Threadâ€. Then look below that where it says “Bookmarksâ€, in which it says “Digg†and “del.icio.us†and “StumbleUpon†and “Googleâ€.
Just below that it says “Code Corrupted. Insert fresh copyâ€.
Seems to say it in every thread, every list of threads, and even in the list of different types of forums. Don’t’ know what it means. Or if it has any meaning at all. Or how long its been there. But I would think it has some sort of purpose for being there. I only noticed it after my post #16 posted in such a weird way.
FC
Miscommunication. Sorry about that.
Look below where it says “+Reply to Threadâ€. Then look below that where it says “Bookmarksâ€, in which it says “Digg†and “del.icio.us†and “StumbleUpon†and “Googleâ€.
Just below that it says “Code Corrupted. Insert fresh copyâ€.
Seems to say it in every thread, every list of threads, and even in the list of different types of forums. Don’t’ know what it means. Or if it has any meaning at all. Or how long its been there. But I would think it has some sort of purpose for being there. I only noticed it after my post #16 posted in such a weird way.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Jethro Bodine
“Although I sympathize with your divorce from those who call themselves 'Christians', because of how terribly they have misrepresented that title these last few centuries, unless what you see that others don't is along this line, I may not be seeing it either:â€
Maybe not. My “divorce†from Christians and Christianity has more of a reason than just that Christians have misrepresented the title.
I have a realization of the nature and character of Christianity. A human nature and a denominational character that goes along with its nature. And when I read the history of Christianity, it extends back a lot further than just a few centuries.
As far as the use of the term “Christian†as a self-denotation, I don’t believe the Bible teaches that. Christian refers to a follower of Christ. It was originally used by unbelievers to denote believers. Believers are not just followers of a philosopher or religious teacher. They are in Christ. Not the same as just being a follower.
“In regard to what I think 'Christians' do not see, I think they probably never will see it because we are in the prophesied last days of the church. A church utterly corrupted and disconnected from the head, Jesus Christ.â€
The idea that Christ’s return is immanent has been around for a couple millennia now. Anymore, eschatology isn’t something with which I bother myself. Whether the second coming is tomorrow or in another millennia, it makes no difference to me. I blame neither God nor Satan nor an immanent return of Christ for what are obviously the foibles of men.
You mentioned “the Churchâ€. I think this would be a good place to reiterate that to me, the ekklesia described in the NT are not the same as the Churches in Christianity. The English word church comes from a Greek phrase that doesn’t even include the word ekklesia. The translation of ekklesia by the word church in the English bibles is a mistranslation that is due to a Tradition. I don’t believe in the universal or one Church idea, whether as it is understood in Catholicism or in Protestantism. Each ekklesia is local and a universal understanding of same is a doctrine of men. The Body of Christ is the universal element that each local ekklesia is intended to express.
“But I'm not sure you've ever even shared the basics in any specific manner.â€
Been here six months and have 400+ posts to my name. So I fail to understand what you mean by “in any specific mannerâ€. I’m at the point where I’m starting to be repetitious. If one looks at what I’ve said as a personal doctrinal standard, I think every basic idea has been covered at some point or another. But I‘m willing to take into account that you’ve only been here since OCT, and probably haven’t taken an interest in what I believe until now. So what I’ve said in the past is no doubt unfamiliar to you.
I will state this. Unlike what is expected by the members of this forum, I don’t believe that what I believe is merely a personal opinion. If I actually believed that, I would just be playing a game. With myself, with others, and with God. And the reason I believe that what I believe isn’t merely a personal opinion is because I believe I’m being taught by Jesus Christ through the Spirit. I believe that what I know is through a supernatural source. Not that I hear voices in my head, as a couple of people have intimated. It’s in the form of insight. It’s a seeing what is true. And it’s not due to a personal practice of Biblical interpretation. A practice that I oppose. Prior to my realization that Christianity is a man-made religion and becoming a former Christian, I practiced biblical interpretation just like every other Christian.
Anyone who insists that what I believe must be a personal opinion actually reflects on how they consider their own beliefs.
I haven’t presented anything on this forum that is more than basic ideas. Ideas I believe everyone who is in Christ and walks by the Spirit should be able to see. There is only one Lord and one Spirit. And the bible is only one revelation given by God that Jesus uses to teach us. I just can’t go along with the idea that differences in opinion are necessary or intended without also thinking how un-supernatural that idea is. Talk about feet planted firmly in mid-air. I rarely have to acknowledge that I’m wrong in what I believe anymore. Not in the basics. Though I’ve had my mind changed in a couple of areas since I’ve been here. In spite of, rather than because of, since the changes in my understanding went counter to the consensus of this forum. Nevertheless, I’m willing to acknowledge when I simply don’t know.
“Until we know specifically what you're seeing that others aren't this won't get very far with people. The problem of pride in the church will not let people honestly inquire and search for the depth of what you're alluding to.â€
As I said, what I present on this forum is not depth. It’s basics. But you’re right in that what I post generally doesn’t get very far with people. But I don’t blame them. They have their own understanding of what is true.
“I do to a small extent. By small I mean some are simply more gifted than others and appointed and equipped to help others see to the extent they can. Some are simply given more depth of the Word than others as seen in the parables. But the goal the knowledge we have is to bring us to is identical.â€
I understand what you’re saying. And I would say you would be right if the ekklesia instead of the Christianity Churches were fully functional. But so far as I know, though I believe the ekklesia exist today, I’m aware of no functioning ekklesia. Only the Churches of Christianity are functional today. And to me that’s a difference between supernatural Spiritual function and natural human function.
“Sounds like you're saying God does not ordain certain men/ women for specific ministries and tasks in the world. I disagree.â€
Well, I can only say that it isn’t a matter of ordination, but of walking by the Spirit. The ones who are walking by the Spirit and are actually led by the Spirit, will just be acting according to a life, the life in Christ, not a ministry. The Spiritual “giftsâ€, that are often confused with the personal and ordained ministries of Christians today, are referring to something that is done specifically in relation to each ekklesia. Apart from functioning ekklesia, Spiritual “gifts†relating to the functioning of the ekklesia can’t exist today.
“God confirmed his Word through other people who were experiencing the same growth I wasâ€
I envy you that experience. Very little of what I believe today has been confirmed in that manner. I have had to rely on inner confirmation. If that doesn’t actually exist and if it’s just me confirming myself, as some have intimated, then in practicality, I’m an Atheist deluded by what appears to me to be supernatural. I can say that because I started out in Adam as an Atheist. What a joke that would be. An Atheist deluded, self-deluded, into practicing a religion. Because if I’m deluding myself, then what I believe is as much a man-made religion as is Christianity.
“This is where we differ. Pulling away was just not an option. It's the truth, and that's just the way it is. There's nothing to go back to.â€
Well, actually we don’t differ at all. Since I also believe the supernatural as described in the Bible is the truth. I don’t know your background. But if ever the supernatural was proved to me beyond a questionable doubt to be a delusion, Atheism is what I would revert to. Probably a form of philosophical cultural Humanism. I wouldn’t become another militant Atheist. Because I understand that believing in a religion is generally not hurting anyone. Religious extremism uncounted naturally. And converting to another religion would be out of the question, of course.
“Well, I'll be perfectly frank with you. Until I learn a little more about you, I have a guarded sense about your post right now. There really are a lot of whackos in the church, you know.â€
We’re on a forum. It’s not like real life. Whatever you learn about me will be partial at best. I can only hope that my posts speak for themselves. But at 400+, I can’t expect you to go perusing through them all in an attempt to know more about me. Besides, I can express what I believe better today than when I first came here.
I should write a specific post that answers in summary form what I believe to be true. But I’m not sure how to go about it. When writing about one’s experience of the supernatural, it doesn’t always lend itself to written summaries, like doctrines do a Creed.
Yes, there’s a lot of whackos related to Christianity. But I don’t believe the percentage is higher than in any other segment of natural society. That last paragraph to Reba was intended to be humorous. Unappreciated because unrecognized, apparently. It seems to be harder, for me at least, to be humorous on a forum than in real life. Except inadvertently and unintentionally.
But I too have learned to choose with care my friends out in real life. Currently, most of my friends are non-Christians. Sad to say, but true. It’s difficult for most Christians of the conservative sort to accept me as I am. Liberal Christians claim to accept anyone as they are. But being a biblical conservative myself, relatively speaking, even Christians of the liberal sort find it difficult to accept me as I am.
FC
“Although I sympathize with your divorce from those who call themselves 'Christians', because of how terribly they have misrepresented that title these last few centuries, unless what you see that others don't is along this line, I may not be seeing it either:â€
Maybe not. My “divorce†from Christians and Christianity has more of a reason than just that Christians have misrepresented the title.
I have a realization of the nature and character of Christianity. A human nature and a denominational character that goes along with its nature. And when I read the history of Christianity, it extends back a lot further than just a few centuries.
As far as the use of the term “Christian†as a self-denotation, I don’t believe the Bible teaches that. Christian refers to a follower of Christ. It was originally used by unbelievers to denote believers. Believers are not just followers of a philosopher or religious teacher. They are in Christ. Not the same as just being a follower.
“In regard to what I think 'Christians' do not see, I think they probably never will see it because we are in the prophesied last days of the church. A church utterly corrupted and disconnected from the head, Jesus Christ.â€
The idea that Christ’s return is immanent has been around for a couple millennia now. Anymore, eschatology isn’t something with which I bother myself. Whether the second coming is tomorrow or in another millennia, it makes no difference to me. I blame neither God nor Satan nor an immanent return of Christ for what are obviously the foibles of men.
You mentioned “the Churchâ€. I think this would be a good place to reiterate that to me, the ekklesia described in the NT are not the same as the Churches in Christianity. The English word church comes from a Greek phrase that doesn’t even include the word ekklesia. The translation of ekklesia by the word church in the English bibles is a mistranslation that is due to a Tradition. I don’t believe in the universal or one Church idea, whether as it is understood in Catholicism or in Protestantism. Each ekklesia is local and a universal understanding of same is a doctrine of men. The Body of Christ is the universal element that each local ekklesia is intended to express.
“But I'm not sure you've ever even shared the basics in any specific manner.â€
Been here six months and have 400+ posts to my name. So I fail to understand what you mean by “in any specific mannerâ€. I’m at the point where I’m starting to be repetitious. If one looks at what I’ve said as a personal doctrinal standard, I think every basic idea has been covered at some point or another. But I‘m willing to take into account that you’ve only been here since OCT, and probably haven’t taken an interest in what I believe until now. So what I’ve said in the past is no doubt unfamiliar to you.
I will state this. Unlike what is expected by the members of this forum, I don’t believe that what I believe is merely a personal opinion. If I actually believed that, I would just be playing a game. With myself, with others, and with God. And the reason I believe that what I believe isn’t merely a personal opinion is because I believe I’m being taught by Jesus Christ through the Spirit. I believe that what I know is through a supernatural source. Not that I hear voices in my head, as a couple of people have intimated. It’s in the form of insight. It’s a seeing what is true. And it’s not due to a personal practice of Biblical interpretation. A practice that I oppose. Prior to my realization that Christianity is a man-made religion and becoming a former Christian, I practiced biblical interpretation just like every other Christian.
Anyone who insists that what I believe must be a personal opinion actually reflects on how they consider their own beliefs.
I haven’t presented anything on this forum that is more than basic ideas. Ideas I believe everyone who is in Christ and walks by the Spirit should be able to see. There is only one Lord and one Spirit. And the bible is only one revelation given by God that Jesus uses to teach us. I just can’t go along with the idea that differences in opinion are necessary or intended without also thinking how un-supernatural that idea is. Talk about feet planted firmly in mid-air. I rarely have to acknowledge that I’m wrong in what I believe anymore. Not in the basics. Though I’ve had my mind changed in a couple of areas since I’ve been here. In spite of, rather than because of, since the changes in my understanding went counter to the consensus of this forum. Nevertheless, I’m willing to acknowledge when I simply don’t know.
“Until we know specifically what you're seeing that others aren't this won't get very far with people. The problem of pride in the church will not let people honestly inquire and search for the depth of what you're alluding to.â€
As I said, what I present on this forum is not depth. It’s basics. But you’re right in that what I post generally doesn’t get very far with people. But I don’t blame them. They have their own understanding of what is true.
“I do to a small extent. By small I mean some are simply more gifted than others and appointed and equipped to help others see to the extent they can. Some are simply given more depth of the Word than others as seen in the parables. But the goal the knowledge we have is to bring us to is identical.â€
I understand what you’re saying. And I would say you would be right if the ekklesia instead of the Christianity Churches were fully functional. But so far as I know, though I believe the ekklesia exist today, I’m aware of no functioning ekklesia. Only the Churches of Christianity are functional today. And to me that’s a difference between supernatural Spiritual function and natural human function.
“Sounds like you're saying God does not ordain certain men/ women for specific ministries and tasks in the world. I disagree.â€
Well, I can only say that it isn’t a matter of ordination, but of walking by the Spirit. The ones who are walking by the Spirit and are actually led by the Spirit, will just be acting according to a life, the life in Christ, not a ministry. The Spiritual “giftsâ€, that are often confused with the personal and ordained ministries of Christians today, are referring to something that is done specifically in relation to each ekklesia. Apart from functioning ekklesia, Spiritual “gifts†relating to the functioning of the ekklesia can’t exist today.
“God confirmed his Word through other people who were experiencing the same growth I wasâ€
I envy you that experience. Very little of what I believe today has been confirmed in that manner. I have had to rely on inner confirmation. If that doesn’t actually exist and if it’s just me confirming myself, as some have intimated, then in practicality, I’m an Atheist deluded by what appears to me to be supernatural. I can say that because I started out in Adam as an Atheist. What a joke that would be. An Atheist deluded, self-deluded, into practicing a religion. Because if I’m deluding myself, then what I believe is as much a man-made religion as is Christianity.
“This is where we differ. Pulling away was just not an option. It's the truth, and that's just the way it is. There's nothing to go back to.â€
Well, actually we don’t differ at all. Since I also believe the supernatural as described in the Bible is the truth. I don’t know your background. But if ever the supernatural was proved to me beyond a questionable doubt to be a delusion, Atheism is what I would revert to. Probably a form of philosophical cultural Humanism. I wouldn’t become another militant Atheist. Because I understand that believing in a religion is generally not hurting anyone. Religious extremism uncounted naturally. And converting to another religion would be out of the question, of course.
“Well, I'll be perfectly frank with you. Until I learn a little more about you, I have a guarded sense about your post right now. There really are a lot of whackos in the church, you know.â€
We’re on a forum. It’s not like real life. Whatever you learn about me will be partial at best. I can only hope that my posts speak for themselves. But at 400+, I can’t expect you to go perusing through them all in an attempt to know more about me. Besides, I can express what I believe better today than when I first came here.
I should write a specific post that answers in summary form what I believe to be true. But I’m not sure how to go about it. When writing about one’s experience of the supernatural, it doesn’t always lend itself to written summaries, like doctrines do a Creed.
Yes, there’s a lot of whackos related to Christianity. But I don’t believe the percentage is higher than in any other segment of natural society. That last paragraph to Reba was intended to be humorous. Unappreciated because unrecognized, apparently. It seems to be harder, for me at least, to be humorous on a forum than in real life. Except inadvertently and unintentionally.
But I too have learned to choose with care my friends out in real life. Currently, most of my friends are non-Christians. Sad to say, but true. It’s difficult for most Christians of the conservative sort to accept me as I am. Liberal Christians claim to accept anyone as they are. But being a biblical conservative myself, relatively speaking, even Christians of the liberal sort find it difficult to accept me as I am.
FC
FC no problem
you might be surprised of how many agree with how much of what you say on the Biblical side.Now to the computer .... using firefox relieved many little headaches for me....
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the term "gospel", at least as used by Paul, does not really refer to the good news that we can go to heaven when we die if we accept Jesus as our Saviour.
That is true. And it is good news. But it is not what Paul means when he uses the specific term "gospel".
For Paul, the term "gospel" denotes the good news that Jesus has been enthroned as Lord of the Universe. Of course, the fact that we can be "saved" is one of the outworkings of this, but it is not really what the term "gospel" denotes.
Perhaps this is a tangent to the direction the thread is going, but I put it out for your consideration.
That is true. And it is good news. But it is not what Paul means when he uses the specific term "gospel".
For Paul, the term "gospel" denotes the good news that Jesus has been enthroned as Lord of the Universe. Of course, the fact that we can be "saved" is one of the outworkings of this, but it is not really what the term "gospel" denotes.
Perhaps this is a tangent to the direction the thread is going, but I put it out for your consideration.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Reba
I Tried Firefox. Doesn’t seem to work well on this computer.
Check out post #16 on the “Love†thread, #16 on the “Go and sin no more†thread, #1 on the “Scriptural Conflict Resolution aka Harmony†thread, #16 on the “Faith and Courage†thread. Maybe it’s just my computer reading these posts in a strange manner. But they look strange compared to most posts to me.
FC
I Tried Firefox. Doesn’t seem to work well on this computer.
Check out post #16 on the “Love†thread, #16 on the “Go and sin no more†thread, #1 on the “Scriptural Conflict Resolution aka Harmony†thread, #16 on the “Faith and Courage†thread. Maybe it’s just my computer reading these posts in a strange manner. But they look strange compared to most posts to me.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
“Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the term "gospel", at least as used by Paul, does not really refer to the good news that we can go to heaven when we die if we accept Jesus as our Saviour.
For Paul, the term "gospel" denotes the good news that Jesus has been enthroned as Lord of the Universe.â€
The Gospel just means good news. It is used in relation to more than just the enthronement of Jesus.
Mt 4:23 And Jesus went....preaching the gospel of the kingdom....
Ac 20:24 (Paul preached) the gospel of the grace of God.
Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish 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
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace
Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel
While it may be true that Jesus enthroned is a part of the Gospel, it isn’t the whole of the Gospel. I would be interested to learn on which Scripture you base your idea on.
FC
“Despite widespread belief to the contrary, the term "gospel", at least as used by Paul, does not really refer to the good news that we can go to heaven when we die if we accept Jesus as our Saviour.
For Paul, the term "gospel" denotes the good news that Jesus has been enthroned as Lord of the Universe.â€
The Gospel just means good news. It is used in relation to more than just the enthronement of Jesus.
Mt 4:23 And Jesus went....preaching the gospel of the kingdom....
Ac 20:24 (Paul preached) the gospel of the grace of God.
Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God
Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish 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
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise
Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace
Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel
While it may be true that Jesus enthroned is a part of the Gospel, it isn’t the whole of the Gospel. I would be interested to learn on which Scripture you base your idea on.
FC
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
Not really. Yes the term "gospel", as a word considered in total isolation, denotes "good news", but you cannot logically conclude that Paul always used in such a broad sense.
The fact that the sun shines is good news, but surely we agree that when Paul refers to the "gospel" he is not, among other things, referring to the good news that the sun shines.
A careful analysis of Pauline use of the term "the gospel" reveals that it refers specifically to the message that the risen Jesus is the Lord of all creation.
Yes, it is "good news" that you can be saved by faith.
But it also good news that the sun shines. However, neither of these are at the center of what Paul means when he uses the term "gospel".
More shortly....
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
On the matter of precisely what Paul meant by the term “gospelâ€, here is Romans 1:2-4
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, 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. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace....
Paul says that that the gospel is something about Jesus. Then Paul elaborates the content of gospel in terms of who Jesus is. He reaches the end of his sentence about the gospel at the end of verse 4 (note the period there). Nowhere does Paul make any statement about us, except that Jesus is Lord over us. More specifically, nowhere does Paul make any claim about “how we get saved†in this statement of the gospel. So people are free to define the “gospel†as “you can be saved by faith in Jesusâ€. But that is not how Paul uses the term.
Now to address verse 5: Assuming that we understand the "receiving of grace" as entailing salvation, Paul is saying that we get salvation through Jesus. But this does not change that verses 2-4 assert that the content of the gospel is about who Jesus is - the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection constitutes Him as Lord of the world. So the "gospel" is not "grace or salvation by faith" - it is what Paul says it is here, things predicated of Jesus.
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, 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. 5 Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace....
Paul says that that the gospel is something about Jesus. Then Paul elaborates the content of gospel in terms of who Jesus is. He reaches the end of his sentence about the gospel at the end of verse 4 (note the period there). Nowhere does Paul make any statement about us, except that Jesus is Lord over us. More specifically, nowhere does Paul make any claim about “how we get saved†in this statement of the gospel. So people are free to define the “gospel†as “you can be saved by faith in Jesusâ€. But that is not how Paul uses the term.
Now to address verse 5: Assuming that we understand the "receiving of grace" as entailing salvation, Paul is saying that we get salvation through Jesus. But this does not change that verses 2-4 assert that the content of the gospel is about who Jesus is - the Davidic Messiah whose resurrection constitutes Him as Lord of the world. So the "gospel" is not "grace or salvation by faith" - it is what Paul says it is here, things predicated of Jesus.
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
Here is Romans 1: 16-17 as rendered in the NASB:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
A careful analysis of what Paul writes shows that he does not consider “the gospel†to be the news that one can be saved by faith in Jesus. He believes this, of course, but Paul uses the word “gospel†to refer to other news: Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as lord of the world through God’s resurrection of Him from the dead (see Romans 1:3-4).
To say that something (in this case, the gospel) is the power for something else - our salvation - you have to be saying that the gospel is a thing that produces or generates our salvation. So the gospel cannot be news about "salvation", it is news that generates or produces salvation.
Just for the sake of argument, consider what we get when we substitute “news about salvation†for “the gospel†in verse 16:
For I am not ashamed of the news about salvation, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
How can news about salvation produce or generate salvation? It clearly cannot. That would be like saying “The news that the Yankees won the world series is the power for the Yankees to win the World Series. Clearly this in incoherent.
Now consider what we get when insert substitute “new about Jesus’ lordship†for “the gospel in verse 16:
For I am not ashamed of the news of Jesus’ lordship, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
This is entirely workable, although there is a subtlety to consider. Paul is saying that the news about Jesus’ lordship is the generating force for salvation. What can he mean? He means – and this entirely supported by his entire lifework and is supported by other things he writes – that he believes that the very announcement of Jesus’ lordship is mysteriously used by the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith. That, of course, is why our job is to tell people about Jesus’ resurrection and lordship.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
A careful analysis of what Paul writes shows that he does not consider “the gospel†to be the news that one can be saved by faith in Jesus. He believes this, of course, but Paul uses the word “gospel†to refer to other news: Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as lord of the world through God’s resurrection of Him from the dead (see Romans 1:3-4).
To say that something (in this case, the gospel) is the power for something else - our salvation - you have to be saying that the gospel is a thing that produces or generates our salvation. So the gospel cannot be news about "salvation", it is news that generates or produces salvation.
Just for the sake of argument, consider what we get when we substitute “news about salvation†for “the gospel†in verse 16:
For I am not ashamed of the news about salvation, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
How can news about salvation produce or generate salvation? It clearly cannot. That would be like saying “The news that the Yankees won the world series is the power for the Yankees to win the World Series. Clearly this in incoherent.
Now consider what we get when insert substitute “new about Jesus’ lordship†for “the gospel in verse 16:
For I am not ashamed of the news of Jesus’ lordship, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
This is entirely workable, although there is a subtlety to consider. Paul is saying that the news about Jesus’ lordship is the generating force for salvation. What can he mean? He means – and this entirely supported by his entire lifework and is supported by other things he writes – that he believes that the very announcement of Jesus’ lordship is mysteriously used by the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith. That, of course, is why our job is to tell people about Jesus’ resurrection and lordship.
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
I hope it is clear that I am not denying that the news about "salvation by faith in Jesus" is indeed good news! I am also agreeing that there is a tight connection between (1) Paul's use of the term "gospel" to denote the news of Jesus' lordship over all creation; and (2) the news that people can be saved by faith in Jesus.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
You’ve learned well from Christianity how to interpret the Bible.
Ephesians 1:
12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
(NASB)
I would say that this shows how wrong your interpretive thesis is. But I have no doubt but that you have an interpretation for these verses as well.
FC
You’ve learned well from Christianity how to interpret the Bible.
Ephesians 1:
12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
(NASB)
I would say that this shows how wrong your interpretive thesis is. But I have no doubt but that you have an interpretation for these verses as well.
FC
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
First of all, presenting this text still leaves the arguments about the other texts untouched. I maintain that these other texts make it fairly clear that the central content of the "gospel" for Paul is that Jesus is Lord of all the world.
Those arguments are what they are - they cannot, legitimately anyway, simply be ignored (although that practise is exceedingly common here, as you may already know).
I have perhaps not been as clear as I could have been that there is a tight connection between the "Jesus is Lord" message which, I maintain, is the essence of the "gospel" for Paul and the "good news" about personal salvation. More specifically, the fact that the believer is "saved" is one of the fundamental consequences of the fact that Jesus is Lord. So it is not suprising to have Paul write he writes here.
There are a number of arguments I plan to provide that support the view that, for Paul, the main essence of the "gospel" is Jesus' status as Lord. I do not deny that the news of "salvation by faith" is intimately bound up with that - and therefore we get this text from Ephesians 1. Nevertheless, the entirety of all relevant texts strongly supports the notion that the focus of the "gospel" is on Jesus' kingship, not on our salvation.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
“First of all, presenting this text still leaves the arguments about the other texts untouched. I maintain that these other texts make it fairly clear that the central content of the "gospel" for Paul is that Jesus is Lord of all the world.
Those arguments are what they are - they cannot, legitimately anyway, simply be ignored (although that practise is exceedingly common here, as you may already know).â€
If you’re looking for a commentary on the verses in Ephesians I provided, I rarely do that anymore. Simply because in Christianity people just don’t see the Bible alike. As a general rule, Christians practice biblical interpretation. Just as they were taught to do. Giving the false impression that the bible is intended to be understood through the practice of biblical interpretation, and that everyone interprets the bible regardless of whether or not they think they do. The result has been denominations and the various gospels in Christianity.
So I merely present what I believe in prose without any Scripture given, though Scripture may be alluded to without giving Scripture references. In this case, I presented the verses in Ephesians without any commentary because I believe that in themselves they are evidence enough against your thesis.
If for no other reason, I will never return to being a Christian. I can’t believe in the verity of the confusion of opinions in Christianity. So I have to believe what I believe and let the rest go their own way. My beliefs in no way conform to any Christian denomination that I’m aware of. I know I’m not operating under arrogance. Arrogance would make me think that talking to Christians is beneath me and I wouldn’t even be on this forum.
For your benefit, I present my understanding of Romans 1:1-17 that you no doubt won’t be able to agree with. In fact, if I remember correctly, you’re one who believes that everyone interprets the bible no matter whether they think they do so or not. So my understanding will be just another interpretation to you. But I must say that if I believed that way, I would have already reverted to Atheism. If it’s all a matter of interpretation, and since interpretation can only be personal opinion, whether or not one believes as a part of that opinion that they are given interpretive aid by a supernatural force or life, then the interpretation of the Atheist is no less valid than that of any religious practitioner. Which effectively lessens the value of religious belief.
I will emphasize the matter of the gospel in this presentation. Which in itself will be a limitation to what would be otherwise a fuller exposition of these verses.
But first, I want to say that that I believe the preaching of Jesus Christ is the same preaching as presented in the rest of the NT. It’s the same gospel. He preaches “the kingdom of heaven is at hand†(Mat 4:17). And so it was at that point. Because the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; the kingdom of heaven is no longer at hand. It’s a reality in the ones who are in Christ. Jesus himself alluded to that fact to come when he said the kingdom is within you (Luke 17:21). Jesus teaches the disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven†(Mat 6:10). Christians still pray that prayer today. And it’s apropos to Christians, among whom the will of God isn’t being done because of the denominational character of Christianity. Except among the ones who are overcoming the human nature of Christianity. For them to pray that prayer, is not apropos, unless they still think that God’s will isn’t even yet being done on earth through them. Paul shows that the gospel is as much for the Gentiles as the Jews when he mentions, “the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ i you, the hope of glory†(Col 1:27).
More to follow.
FC
“First of all, presenting this text still leaves the arguments about the other texts untouched. I maintain that these other texts make it fairly clear that the central content of the "gospel" for Paul is that Jesus is Lord of all the world.
Those arguments are what they are - they cannot, legitimately anyway, simply be ignored (although that practise is exceedingly common here, as you may already know).â€
If you’re looking for a commentary on the verses in Ephesians I provided, I rarely do that anymore. Simply because in Christianity people just don’t see the Bible alike. As a general rule, Christians practice biblical interpretation. Just as they were taught to do. Giving the false impression that the bible is intended to be understood through the practice of biblical interpretation, and that everyone interprets the bible regardless of whether or not they think they do. The result has been denominations and the various gospels in Christianity.
So I merely present what I believe in prose without any Scripture given, though Scripture may be alluded to without giving Scripture references. In this case, I presented the verses in Ephesians without any commentary because I believe that in themselves they are evidence enough against your thesis.
If for no other reason, I will never return to being a Christian. I can’t believe in the verity of the confusion of opinions in Christianity. So I have to believe what I believe and let the rest go their own way. My beliefs in no way conform to any Christian denomination that I’m aware of. I know I’m not operating under arrogance. Arrogance would make me think that talking to Christians is beneath me and I wouldn’t even be on this forum.
For your benefit, I present my understanding of Romans 1:1-17 that you no doubt won’t be able to agree with. In fact, if I remember correctly, you’re one who believes that everyone interprets the bible no matter whether they think they do so or not. So my understanding will be just another interpretation to you. But I must say that if I believed that way, I would have already reverted to Atheism. If it’s all a matter of interpretation, and since interpretation can only be personal opinion, whether or not one believes as a part of that opinion that they are given interpretive aid by a supernatural force or life, then the interpretation of the Atheist is no less valid than that of any religious practitioner. Which effectively lessens the value of religious belief.
I will emphasize the matter of the gospel in this presentation. Which in itself will be a limitation to what would be otherwise a fuller exposition of these verses.
But first, I want to say that that I believe the preaching of Jesus Christ is the same preaching as presented in the rest of the NT. It’s the same gospel. He preaches “the kingdom of heaven is at hand†(Mat 4:17). And so it was at that point. Because the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. After the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; the kingdom of heaven is no longer at hand. It’s a reality in the ones who are in Christ. Jesus himself alluded to that fact to come when he said the kingdom is within you (Luke 17:21). Jesus teaches the disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven†(Mat 6:10). Christians still pray that prayer today. And it’s apropos to Christians, among whom the will of God isn’t being done because of the denominational character of Christianity. Except among the ones who are overcoming the human nature of Christianity. For them to pray that prayer, is not apropos, unless they still think that God’s will isn’t even yet being done on earth through them. Paul shows that the gospel is as much for the Gentiles as the Jews when he mentions, “the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ i you, the hope of glory†(Col 1:27).
More to follow.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
Romans 1:
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,
6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(NASB)
1 Paul was not only a slave of Christ and a called apostle, his apostleship was due to him having been set apart for (lit. into) the gospel of God. The gospel is the center and focal point of everything Paul writes. Romans isn’t another gospel or the fifth gospel. It’s the one and only gospel as presented by Paul.
And in passing, to say that the word gospel is used in many different ways is part of an interpretive ploy used by biblical interpreters that allows for various interpretive understandings of the bible. The ploy has managed to create a lot of jobs for the interpreters apart from any real experience of the reality. The experience of the interpreters is an experience of their own interpretations.
2 The gospel of God was promised by God beforehand. Through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (lit. writings). It must be understood that Paul is referring to the OT, just as he did in 2 Tim 3:16. The NT didn’t exist as a compiled set of writings at that time. I am one who believes that the content of the NT existed as needed in all of the ekklesia in the first century in oral form through the Spiritual (gifts). But when writings are mentioned, it is a reference to the OT. There’s a lot of writing in the OT. It covers a lot more than just a single aspect of Jesus Christ. That in itself should be sufficient to reveal to you that your limiting thesis is not accurate.
3-4 According to flesh, Jesus was born of a descendent of David. That’s a reference to his human nature. By (Lit. out of) his resurrection, Jesus was declared (lit. marked out as a boundary) as Son of God with (lit. in) power according to spirit of holiness. The reference to the spirit of holiness is not a reference to the Holy Spirit. Rather, it’s a reference to the Divine nature of the Son. The two natures aren’t contrasted in any way. Rather, it shows the wholeness of the one Jesus Christ.
I should mention that knowing something of the Greek, I tend to throw in literal meanings of Greek words from time to time. English translations, even when considered literal, as the KJV and the NASB, are not really very literal. Which is a commentary in itself on the state of those English translations considered more dynamic or phrase to phrase translations. When the NIV first came out, it was not considered a literal translation. Today, what with the modern translations that are even less literal, the NIV could pass for literal by comparison. Sometimes I marvel at how well some modern translations manage to get any of the general idea across without actually being literal translations. What with the practice of interpretive translation and all.
Verses 3 and 4 together refers to the entire Christ, not just an aspect of Christ. It refers to the Life in Christ through which he was raised. As a man Jesus died. As a Divine person Jesus rose form the dead. Paul preached Christ crucified without neglecting Christ resurrected. We are bought with a price through the crucifixion of the man Jesus Christ. We receive the promise of eternal life through the resurrection of the Divine Jesus Christ. This is all encompassed in these verses so far and is part of the one gospel. This is why Jesus Christ is our Lord. He is the King in the Kingdom of the Son, into which we have been put. Eventually, every knee will bow to this King. That is true. But the Kingship of Christ is only part of the gospel.
5 Through whom we, referring to himself and the other Apostles chosen for the same purpose as Paul, received grace and apostleship. Why? To bring about (Lit. into, that whole phrase “to bring about†in the NASB translated a Greek preposition that simply means “intoâ€). The obedience of faith among all the Gentiles (Lit. in all the nations) for his name’s sake (Lit. on behalf of his name). Paul isn’t just referring to the Gentiles here. All nations, including the nation of the Jews are included. Peter’s ministry was primarily to the Jews and Paul’s primarily to the Gentiles. Yet the first Gentile was accepted through Peter and Paul always went into the synagogues first. There is no restriction on the gospel except what interpreterss might try to put on it.
6 Among (Lit. in) whom you, referring specifically to the ones in Christ who live in Rome and by extension to all who are in Christ, are all called ones of Jesus Christ. The inference of Paul is that all have just as much of a purpose as do the Apostles. Paul only boasted of his Apostleship when it was necessary to get a point across. To Paul, every calling was important and integral to the whole. And this calling is part of the gospel.
7 To all who are beloved of God in Rome. The order is reversed in the Greek. To all the ones in Rome, beloved of God. Isn’t it nice to know that the love of God extends beyond just the ones who are in Christ? How easy it is for us to love those who are our own, family or friends. How hard to love anyone else. And I’m not referring to affection here. In the bible, love refers to an attitude that expresses itself in an action, not an emotion. Jesus as the Son of God loved indiscriminately. Jesus died for all showing his love for all. This too is part of the gospel.
Called as saints. This is not what the Greek says. There are two adjectives here. Just as the Greek word beloved is an adjective. Called ones, saints (lit. pure ones). Not only beloved ones of God, but in God’s eyes called ones and pure ones. God sees the world in Christ. Not that all will be saved. Only the ones who respond to the love of God believing into Christ will be saved. Nevertheless, Paul speaks specifically to the ekklesia in Rome. They are in practicality the ones who have been called out of the general population and the ones who are in Christ have accepted that calling. They must now reach the rest who are in Rome revealing to them that they too are among the called. The witness of the ekklesia is for the purpose of reaching all around them, as far as infinity can see.
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.†This is from God and the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the intention of God for the ekklesia especially, but for the world in general also. It is intended to be expressed as a certainty in the ekklesia, as a witness to the world. This too is part of the gospel. But this is not what is expressed in Christianity. With the possible exception of a few individuals. Certainly Christianity is not seen in any light except it’s own as being such an expression.
More to follow.
FC
Romans 1:
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,
3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake,
6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
7 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
(NASB)
1 Paul was not only a slave of Christ and a called apostle, his apostleship was due to him having been set apart for (lit. into) the gospel of God. The gospel is the center and focal point of everything Paul writes. Romans isn’t another gospel or the fifth gospel. It’s the one and only gospel as presented by Paul.
And in passing, to say that the word gospel is used in many different ways is part of an interpretive ploy used by biblical interpreters that allows for various interpretive understandings of the bible. The ploy has managed to create a lot of jobs for the interpreters apart from any real experience of the reality. The experience of the interpreters is an experience of their own interpretations.
2 The gospel of God was promised by God beforehand. Through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures (lit. writings). It must be understood that Paul is referring to the OT, just as he did in 2 Tim 3:16. The NT didn’t exist as a compiled set of writings at that time. I am one who believes that the content of the NT existed as needed in all of the ekklesia in the first century in oral form through the Spiritual (gifts). But when writings are mentioned, it is a reference to the OT. There’s a lot of writing in the OT. It covers a lot more than just a single aspect of Jesus Christ. That in itself should be sufficient to reveal to you that your limiting thesis is not accurate.
3-4 According to flesh, Jesus was born of a descendent of David. That’s a reference to his human nature. By (Lit. out of) his resurrection, Jesus was declared (lit. marked out as a boundary) as Son of God with (lit. in) power according to spirit of holiness. The reference to the spirit of holiness is not a reference to the Holy Spirit. Rather, it’s a reference to the Divine nature of the Son. The two natures aren’t contrasted in any way. Rather, it shows the wholeness of the one Jesus Christ.
I should mention that knowing something of the Greek, I tend to throw in literal meanings of Greek words from time to time. English translations, even when considered literal, as the KJV and the NASB, are not really very literal. Which is a commentary in itself on the state of those English translations considered more dynamic or phrase to phrase translations. When the NIV first came out, it was not considered a literal translation. Today, what with the modern translations that are even less literal, the NIV could pass for literal by comparison. Sometimes I marvel at how well some modern translations manage to get any of the general idea across without actually being literal translations. What with the practice of interpretive translation and all.
Verses 3 and 4 together refers to the entire Christ, not just an aspect of Christ. It refers to the Life in Christ through which he was raised. As a man Jesus died. As a Divine person Jesus rose form the dead. Paul preached Christ crucified without neglecting Christ resurrected. We are bought with a price through the crucifixion of the man Jesus Christ. We receive the promise of eternal life through the resurrection of the Divine Jesus Christ. This is all encompassed in these verses so far and is part of the one gospel. This is why Jesus Christ is our Lord. He is the King in the Kingdom of the Son, into which we have been put. Eventually, every knee will bow to this King. That is true. But the Kingship of Christ is only part of the gospel.
5 Through whom we, referring to himself and the other Apostles chosen for the same purpose as Paul, received grace and apostleship. Why? To bring about (Lit. into, that whole phrase “to bring about†in the NASB translated a Greek preposition that simply means “intoâ€). The obedience of faith among all the Gentiles (Lit. in all the nations) for his name’s sake (Lit. on behalf of his name). Paul isn’t just referring to the Gentiles here. All nations, including the nation of the Jews are included. Peter’s ministry was primarily to the Jews and Paul’s primarily to the Gentiles. Yet the first Gentile was accepted through Peter and Paul always went into the synagogues first. There is no restriction on the gospel except what interpreterss might try to put on it.
6 Among (Lit. in) whom you, referring specifically to the ones in Christ who live in Rome and by extension to all who are in Christ, are all called ones of Jesus Christ. The inference of Paul is that all have just as much of a purpose as do the Apostles. Paul only boasted of his Apostleship when it was necessary to get a point across. To Paul, every calling was important and integral to the whole. And this calling is part of the gospel.
7 To all who are beloved of God in Rome. The order is reversed in the Greek. To all the ones in Rome, beloved of God. Isn’t it nice to know that the love of God extends beyond just the ones who are in Christ? How easy it is for us to love those who are our own, family or friends. How hard to love anyone else. And I’m not referring to affection here. In the bible, love refers to an attitude that expresses itself in an action, not an emotion. Jesus as the Son of God loved indiscriminately. Jesus died for all showing his love for all. This too is part of the gospel.
Called as saints. This is not what the Greek says. There are two adjectives here. Just as the Greek word beloved is an adjective. Called ones, saints (lit. pure ones). Not only beloved ones of God, but in God’s eyes called ones and pure ones. God sees the world in Christ. Not that all will be saved. Only the ones who respond to the love of God believing into Christ will be saved. Nevertheless, Paul speaks specifically to the ekklesia in Rome. They are in practicality the ones who have been called out of the general population and the ones who are in Christ have accepted that calling. They must now reach the rest who are in Rome revealing to them that they too are among the called. The witness of the ekklesia is for the purpose of reaching all around them, as far as infinity can see.
“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.†This is from God and the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the intention of God for the ekklesia especially, but for the world in general also. It is intended to be expressed as a certainty in the ekklesia, as a witness to the world. This too is part of the gospel. But this is not what is expressed in Christianity. With the possible exception of a few individuals. Certainly Christianity is not seen in any light except it’s own as being such an expression.
More to follow.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
Romans 1:
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.
9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,
10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;
12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
13 I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.
14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.
15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
(NASB)
8 Paul thanks his God through Jesus Christ. This is an important phrase. He doesn’t thank Jesus. He thanks God through Jesus. The reason for this thanksgiving? The faith evident in this ekklesia is not only being proclaimed in Rome, but in the whole world. The only way that Christianity can be such a witness is because of numbers. There are so many who call themselves Christian, that the name of Christ at least is being proclaimed world wide. But the experience of being in Christ is not so clearly proclaimed.
9 This is a key verse. Not for Paul. It’s just matter of fact for Paul. Rather for Christianity today. The NASB again departs from the order of the Greek. Paul first says that God is his witness. How many in Christianity can say that? How many who only have the witness of their own minds as they practice Biblical interpretation?
The God whom he serves in his spirit. Much of Christianity today is totally ignorant concerning the nature and purpose of the human spirit. Much of Christianity is ignorant of the existence of the human spirit. Yet here Paul says he serves God in his spirit. Serving in one’s spirit is very important to the gospel.
The human spirit is the connection between the Holy Spirit and the human person. Because it is connected to the human mind, the human spirit is often perceived as either the higher part of the mind or synonymous with the mind itself. God can be served through the mind or through the spirit. But the only way that God can be a witness is when God is served through the human spirit. It’s a difference between natural service through the mind and Divine service through the Holy Spirit.
In what does Paul serve? In the gospel of the Son of the God whom he serves. Paul refers to a complete gospel. Not a limited gospel nor a gospel that can mean anything. God is witness to the gospel Paul is writing about in Romans. The gospel of the Son of God.
Also God is witnessing to how unceasingly Paul makes mention of the Roman ekklesia. As was Jesus, Paul is a man of prayer. Of worship and supplication.
10-12 And what is among Paul’s requests? That he might be allowed in the will of God to see the ones in Rome one more time. A prayer that was answered as he spent his last days in Rome. And it wasn’t just for some emotional affection reason. It was so that he might aid in their being established or confirmed. That they may stand fast. Apparently, Paul knew what was to come. The future was revealed to him. As it was to John. Because like John, he walked by the Spirit and served God in his spirit. The ekklesia in Rome succumbed to the religion of Christianity within a century’s time. But Paul wanted to make sure it wouldn’t happen in his lifetime or because of some lack in himself toward the Roman ekklesia. Yet knowing that the faith of the ekklesia in Rome was being proclaimed in the whole world from Rome, Paul wanted it to be a mutual building up.
13-14 Paul wants to be sure that they know that the fact he hasn’t been able to come as of yet is due to hindrances. Not due to a lack of desire on his part. That he is under obligation to, that is, he owes, the Greeks and the barbarians, the wise and the foolish. The wise Greeks with their philosophies and foolish barbarians who only have one philosophy that caters to the flesh. He owes them all the all encompassing gospel of Christ.
15 So Paul is eager to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome. This gospel he feels is sufficient to build them up into a strong standing force. And why not? Wasn’t that what he was called to do? Is Paul just going to preach the gospel of the Lordship of Jesus. Or will he preach the gospel that the kingdom of God is within them? In it’s greatest practicality to the ones who are in Christ? To be shared and multiplied in all of Rome and in all the world?
More to follow.
FC
Romans 1:
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.
9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you,
10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you.
11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;
12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
13 I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.
14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish.
15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
(NASB)
8 Paul thanks his God through Jesus Christ. This is an important phrase. He doesn’t thank Jesus. He thanks God through Jesus. The reason for this thanksgiving? The faith evident in this ekklesia is not only being proclaimed in Rome, but in the whole world. The only way that Christianity can be such a witness is because of numbers. There are so many who call themselves Christian, that the name of Christ at least is being proclaimed world wide. But the experience of being in Christ is not so clearly proclaimed.
9 This is a key verse. Not for Paul. It’s just matter of fact for Paul. Rather for Christianity today. The NASB again departs from the order of the Greek. Paul first says that God is his witness. How many in Christianity can say that? How many who only have the witness of their own minds as they practice Biblical interpretation?
The God whom he serves in his spirit. Much of Christianity today is totally ignorant concerning the nature and purpose of the human spirit. Much of Christianity is ignorant of the existence of the human spirit. Yet here Paul says he serves God in his spirit. Serving in one’s spirit is very important to the gospel.
The human spirit is the connection between the Holy Spirit and the human person. Because it is connected to the human mind, the human spirit is often perceived as either the higher part of the mind or synonymous with the mind itself. God can be served through the mind or through the spirit. But the only way that God can be a witness is when God is served through the human spirit. It’s a difference between natural service through the mind and Divine service through the Holy Spirit.
In what does Paul serve? In the gospel of the Son of the God whom he serves. Paul refers to a complete gospel. Not a limited gospel nor a gospel that can mean anything. God is witness to the gospel Paul is writing about in Romans. The gospel of the Son of God.
Also God is witnessing to how unceasingly Paul makes mention of the Roman ekklesia. As was Jesus, Paul is a man of prayer. Of worship and supplication.
10-12 And what is among Paul’s requests? That he might be allowed in the will of God to see the ones in Rome one more time. A prayer that was answered as he spent his last days in Rome. And it wasn’t just for some emotional affection reason. It was so that he might aid in their being established or confirmed. That they may stand fast. Apparently, Paul knew what was to come. The future was revealed to him. As it was to John. Because like John, he walked by the Spirit and served God in his spirit. The ekklesia in Rome succumbed to the religion of Christianity within a century’s time. But Paul wanted to make sure it wouldn’t happen in his lifetime or because of some lack in himself toward the Roman ekklesia. Yet knowing that the faith of the ekklesia in Rome was being proclaimed in the whole world from Rome, Paul wanted it to be a mutual building up.
13-14 Paul wants to be sure that they know that the fact he hasn’t been able to come as of yet is due to hindrances. Not due to a lack of desire on his part. That he is under obligation to, that is, he owes, the Greeks and the barbarians, the wise and the foolish. The wise Greeks with their philosophies and foolish barbarians who only have one philosophy that caters to the flesh. He owes them all the all encompassing gospel of Christ.
15 So Paul is eager to preach the gospel to those who are in Rome. This gospel he feels is sufficient to build them up into a strong standing force. And why not? Wasn’t that what he was called to do? Is Paul just going to preach the gospel of the Lordship of Jesus. Or will he preach the gospel that the kingdom of God is within them? In it’s greatest practicality to the ones who are in Christ? To be shared and multiplied in all of Rome and in all the world?
More to follow.
FC
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
Romans 1:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
(NASB)
16 Paul’s not ashamed of the gospel. Why? It’s the power of God for (Lit. into) salvation to everyone who believes. The gospel includes much. And in that gospel is the power of God. Why? Because the gospel is the gospel of what God has done for mankind. It’s an all inclusive gospel. It’s the gospel of the Christ. The gospel is to be preached to the whole world without discrimination, for it is for the whole world. But the content of the gospel is only experienced by those who believe. The Jew first as the called out of the world population by God for a special purpose that has now been fulfilled in Christ and in those who are in Christ. And also to the Greeks as the ones who are the cream of the rest of the nations. The Jews represent the religious ones. The Greeks represent the philosophical ones. In between the two, even the barbarians, the whole world lies.
17 For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed. The sum total of the righteousness of God. Through the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed as something experiential.
People like to emphasize the love of God today. They think of the righteousness of God as being connected to sacrifices, as in the OT and in many religions. They think of a righteous God that has to be appeased by men when they sin. This idea has even extended to the Sacramental denominations in Christianity that claim that there must be a continual sacrifice that shows the appeasement of God’s righteousness.
I could say, what a crock. But it isn’t really. It’s just a matter of point of view. The idea of sacrifice is not as wrong as it seems. It’s the emphasis in relation to the idea that is often turned upside down. The idea that we as men can appease the offended righteousness of God. God has a different view entirely. A view in which the sacrifice is offered on behalf of humanity by God himself. Not to himself, but for humanity. Justice and judgment is a thing of itself. It’s not so much that God has been offended, but that justice has been offended, which brings judgment on the offender. Paul brings that out clearly in chapter 3. God offers a sacrifice that tips the scales of justice in a different direction. God is a just God. But God is also a God that loves. And in his love, the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel of his Son.
Revealed from faith to faith. Literally this is, revealed out of faith into faith. Rom 3:22 is key to understanding this matter. In Christianity, even in Eastern Orthodoxy for some reason, this refers to faith IN Christ. And in that view the idea becomes a matter of growth, from faith to faith. But Rom 3:22 can also be understood as faith OF Christ. Which is the understanding that I have. From this view, the phrase out of faith into faith takes on a whole different meaning. One generally unfamiliar to Christians. The phrase means out of the faith of Christ into the faith of the individual. The righteous of God is revealed out of the faith of Christ. Because the center of the gospel is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is everything to the one who believes (1Cor 1:28-31). Everything that one has in Christ is through the faith of Christ. It is not due to our own faith or our own works. In Christ, everything is Christ. Out of the faith of Christ into our faith. Jesus Christ, the author and the perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2). Out of faith into faith.
As it is written, “But the righteous one out of faith shall live†(Literal). Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. We need to note something here. Paul misquotes this verse. Hab 2:4 reads in the Hebrew “but the righteous shall live by HIS faith†(NASB). This is where the idea in Christianity comes from, that we are Justified by human faith. Paul’s blank is filled in with “hisâ€. From that comes the ultimate expression of the denominational character of Christianity we see today. From that comes the controversy between Justification by human faith alone and Justification by human faith and the human works that express that human faith.
But the NT writers predominantly quote from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew. No doubt because Greek was the common language of most of the Roman empire at the time. Paul wrote to the ekklesia in Rome in Greek, not Latin. The Septuagint translation reads in Hab 2:4, “But the righteous one out of MY faith shall liveâ€. (Literal) The faith of Christ is the same as the faith of God. It is this faith we are to live out of, not our own faith. I believe the reading in the Septuagint to be the more accurate reading in this case. What I fail to understand is why the Eastern Orthodox don’t follow their own authorized version of the OT, which is the Greek Septuagint.
The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. Obviously the gospel includes much more than just the limiting idea of the Lordship of Christ. This idea is included within the gospel nevertheless. Trying to limit the eternal to an emphasis is a foundation stone of the denominational character of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the center of the gospel. Wisdom, Justification, sanctification and redemption is in Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord. Of that there can be no doubt. But the practicality of that Lordship today is only seen in the ones who are in Christ and are walking by the Holy Spirit alone.
FC
Romans 1:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."
(NASB)
16 Paul’s not ashamed of the gospel. Why? It’s the power of God for (Lit. into) salvation to everyone who believes. The gospel includes much. And in that gospel is the power of God. Why? Because the gospel is the gospel of what God has done for mankind. It’s an all inclusive gospel. It’s the gospel of the Christ. The gospel is to be preached to the whole world without discrimination, for it is for the whole world. But the content of the gospel is only experienced by those who believe. The Jew first as the called out of the world population by God for a special purpose that has now been fulfilled in Christ and in those who are in Christ. And also to the Greeks as the ones who are the cream of the rest of the nations. The Jews represent the religious ones. The Greeks represent the philosophical ones. In between the two, even the barbarians, the whole world lies.
17 For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed. The sum total of the righteousness of God. Through the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed as something experiential.
People like to emphasize the love of God today. They think of the righteousness of God as being connected to sacrifices, as in the OT and in many religions. They think of a righteous God that has to be appeased by men when they sin. This idea has even extended to the Sacramental denominations in Christianity that claim that there must be a continual sacrifice that shows the appeasement of God’s righteousness.
I could say, what a crock. But it isn’t really. It’s just a matter of point of view. The idea of sacrifice is not as wrong as it seems. It’s the emphasis in relation to the idea that is often turned upside down. The idea that we as men can appease the offended righteousness of God. God has a different view entirely. A view in which the sacrifice is offered on behalf of humanity by God himself. Not to himself, but for humanity. Justice and judgment is a thing of itself. It’s not so much that God has been offended, but that justice has been offended, which brings judgment on the offender. Paul brings that out clearly in chapter 3. God offers a sacrifice that tips the scales of justice in a different direction. God is a just God. But God is also a God that loves. And in his love, the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel of his Son.
Revealed from faith to faith. Literally this is, revealed out of faith into faith. Rom 3:22 is key to understanding this matter. In Christianity, even in Eastern Orthodoxy for some reason, this refers to faith IN Christ. And in that view the idea becomes a matter of growth, from faith to faith. But Rom 3:22 can also be understood as faith OF Christ. Which is the understanding that I have. From this view, the phrase out of faith into faith takes on a whole different meaning. One generally unfamiliar to Christians. The phrase means out of the faith of Christ into the faith of the individual. The righteous of God is revealed out of the faith of Christ. Because the center of the gospel is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is everything to the one who believes (1Cor 1:28-31). Everything that one has in Christ is through the faith of Christ. It is not due to our own faith or our own works. In Christ, everything is Christ. Out of the faith of Christ into our faith. Jesus Christ, the author and the perfecter of our faith (Heb 12:2). Out of faith into faith.
As it is written, “But the righteous one out of faith shall live†(Literal). Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. We need to note something here. Paul misquotes this verse. Hab 2:4 reads in the Hebrew “but the righteous shall live by HIS faith†(NASB). This is where the idea in Christianity comes from, that we are Justified by human faith. Paul’s blank is filled in with “hisâ€. From that comes the ultimate expression of the denominational character of Christianity we see today. From that comes the controversy between Justification by human faith alone and Justification by human faith and the human works that express that human faith.
But the NT writers predominantly quote from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew. No doubt because Greek was the common language of most of the Roman empire at the time. Paul wrote to the ekklesia in Rome in Greek, not Latin. The Septuagint translation reads in Hab 2:4, “But the righteous one out of MY faith shall liveâ€. (Literal) The faith of Christ is the same as the faith of God. It is this faith we are to live out of, not our own faith. I believe the reading in the Septuagint to be the more accurate reading in this case. What I fail to understand is why the Eastern Orthodox don’t follow their own authorized version of the OT, which is the Greek Septuagint.
The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. Obviously the gospel includes much more than just the limiting idea of the Lordship of Christ. This idea is included within the gospel nevertheless. Trying to limit the eternal to an emphasis is a foundation stone of the denominational character of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the center of the gospel. Wisdom, Justification, sanctification and redemption is in Christ. Jesus Christ is Lord. Of that there can be no doubt. But the practicality of that Lordship today is only seen in the ones who are in Christ and are walking by the Holy Spirit alone.
FC
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
I believe we have a fundamental disagreement. You appear to deny what I suggest is clearly the case: It is simply impossible to avoid acts of "interpretation" - the very structure of reality does not allow this.
More specifically, when we read anything, we necessarily ascribe meaning to those printed words using our minds. And those minds "see" the world through a matrix of linguistic, cultural, and other kinds of pre-suppositions. It is simply impossible to "take off those glasses" through which we view the world and make sense of it.
Every view is somebody's view - there is simply no such such as an "objective" view. This does not mean we cannot make progress towards gaining knowledge of "true meaning", but it does mean that we need to abandon the fantasy that there is some "trick" by which we can avoid acts of interpretation.
Yes, there are many different denominations, and that is not ideal. But that certainly does not mean that we can simply "bypass" the hand of cards that nature has dealt us and expect to be able to speak "objectively" about what the Bible really means.
Drew
Member
- Jan 24, 2005
- 14,249
- 81
This text is not really evidence against my thesis (not really mine in origin - I am parroting the thinking of scholar NT Wright). The problem is that a lot of other texts provide strong evidence that Paul understands "the gospel" to be the news that Jesus is the Lord of the universe.
Yes, the Ephesians text is consistent with the view that "the gospel" = "the news you can be saved". But, I suggest it also consistent with the view I am embracing - I have never denied the tight connection between (1) Jesus being lord of the universe; and (2) salvation by faith in this same Jesus.
In the spirit of an earlier post of mine, I believe you are expecting the impossible. It is simply "the way the world is" that any worldview, whether it be Christianity or any model by which the world is ordered by us, is necessarily developed through acts of interpretation that, of course, are going to be "tainted" by the matrix of unexamined assumptions and pre-suppositions that we all bring to any thinking we undertake.
Former Christian
Member
- Jun 2, 2011
- 839
- 0
Drew
LOL Well, I did warn you didn’t I? That you wouldn’t be able to agree with what I said. Everyone sees the bible differently. Everyone in Christianity has a different interpretation as to what the bible means. Unless, of course, they’re conforming to someone else’s interpretations.
Catholicism makes no bones about that dilemma. Believe in the Church, they say. The one that’s been around since the beginning. Believe in the biblical interpretations of the Church. They can’t seem to realize that history, the history they’ve interpreted to refer to their own Church, and their own acknowledgement that what they believe about the bible are interpretations, proves what Catholicism really is. Sorry Augustine. But your idea that you wouldn’t have believed unless the Church told you what to believe, has a lot of holes in that bucket. Thanks to the practice of historical and biblical interpretation. As does the idea of Martin Luther of exchanging a human authority that interprets the bible, for a written authority that is the bible itself. I think that I can safely say, that Protestantism as it has existed for a half millennia has pretty much shown all the holes in that bucket. Thanks to the continued practice of biblical interpretation.
But you have to ask yourself, what’s so supernatural about biblical interpretation? Where does it lead you except to one more interpretation among many? That is unless you claim that the Spirit is guiding you in your interpretations. And if he’s guiding you, does that make your interpretations any more true than the interpretations of anyone else? Why isn’t this Spirit that’s guiding your interpretations, guiding every one else’s interpretations? Or maybe the Spirit is guiding someone else, and not you, or me either for that matter. There IS only ONE Spirit isn’t there? Or have you interpreted the bible to say that there are as many Spirits as there are interpreters? And where does Jesus Christ fit into all these interpretations? Is there a Jesus for each interpreter as well?
I realized that if I continued to believe that the way to understand the bible is through biblical interpretation, I may as well be an Atheist. And if I remained a Christian, barring total self-blindness, I would have eventually come to that realization so apparent in the denominational character of Christianity. It wouldn’t be a realization that would enable me to believe there’s a God or that Jesus Christ really came to deliver me from my sins. One sin of which would be to interpret what the bible means; a meaning that I can live with, or seems rational to me. And I didn’t want bible “studyâ€, as biblical interpretation is called nowadays, to become just another addiction. I have other addictions that serve just as well, if not better, since they’re more related to natural life here on earth. My interpretations of my surroundings leads to fascinating ideas about origins and the nature of man. And the ideas are more in keeping with current events and current apparent knowledge, than the bible as a 2000+ year old document.
And yes, just as you say, I could very well be under the delusion of total blindness, and what I believe as a former Christian is just as much an interpretation as if I’d continued to be a Christian. If that blindness is ever lifted, I will then be the Atheist I always was. For if I AM currently afflicted by blindness, as others have already suggested, and if I AM just interpreting the bible like everyone else, as others beside you have already suggested; then all I AM now is an Atheist practicing a religion of my own creation.
Sorry, but I continue to maintain that the practice of interpretation, whether of the bible or some other collection of writings considered sacred, is a practical denial of the supernatural and its existence. It only shows how natural the idea of the supernatural really is. The practice of interpretation creates its own idea of the supernatural, and the God or gods that inhabit that interpretive supernatural, can only be the interpretive creations of man.
One would be better off to practice meditation like the Buddhists. Not that the result would necessarily be any less natural. But one would have a better chance of a greater understanding what the writers actually wrote, than if one outright practiced interpretation. And the idea of meditation is a biblical one, not just for Buddhists. Unless one wishes to interpret the idea of meditation as well. Whenever I’ve brought up meditation in the past to Christians, they just think the biblical use of the word means interpretation. Makes me laugh and then just shake my head. How easily interpretation comes to man, natural man.
Meditation just means to “think deeply or carefully about (something)†(Oxford Dictionary). That implies, of course, that one knows and understands what that something actually is. Not a knowledge or understanding of that something according to one’s own interpretation of what they think it is.
FC
LOL Well, I did warn you didn’t I? That you wouldn’t be able to agree with what I said. Everyone sees the bible differently. Everyone in Christianity has a different interpretation as to what the bible means. Unless, of course, they’re conforming to someone else’s interpretations.
Catholicism makes no bones about that dilemma. Believe in the Church, they say. The one that’s been around since the beginning. Believe in the biblical interpretations of the Church. They can’t seem to realize that history, the history they’ve interpreted to refer to their own Church, and their own acknowledgement that what they believe about the bible are interpretations, proves what Catholicism really is. Sorry Augustine. But your idea that you wouldn’t have believed unless the Church told you what to believe, has a lot of holes in that bucket. Thanks to the practice of historical and biblical interpretation. As does the idea of Martin Luther of exchanging a human authority that interprets the bible, for a written authority that is the bible itself. I think that I can safely say, that Protestantism as it has existed for a half millennia has pretty much shown all the holes in that bucket. Thanks to the continued practice of biblical interpretation.
But you have to ask yourself, what’s so supernatural about biblical interpretation? Where does it lead you except to one more interpretation among many? That is unless you claim that the Spirit is guiding you in your interpretations. And if he’s guiding you, does that make your interpretations any more true than the interpretations of anyone else? Why isn’t this Spirit that’s guiding your interpretations, guiding every one else’s interpretations? Or maybe the Spirit is guiding someone else, and not you, or me either for that matter. There IS only ONE Spirit isn’t there? Or have you interpreted the bible to say that there are as many Spirits as there are interpreters? And where does Jesus Christ fit into all these interpretations? Is there a Jesus for each interpreter as well?
I realized that if I continued to believe that the way to understand the bible is through biblical interpretation, I may as well be an Atheist. And if I remained a Christian, barring total self-blindness, I would have eventually come to that realization so apparent in the denominational character of Christianity. It wouldn’t be a realization that would enable me to believe there’s a God or that Jesus Christ really came to deliver me from my sins. One sin of which would be to interpret what the bible means; a meaning that I can live with, or seems rational to me. And I didn’t want bible “studyâ€, as biblical interpretation is called nowadays, to become just another addiction. I have other addictions that serve just as well, if not better, since they’re more related to natural life here on earth. My interpretations of my surroundings leads to fascinating ideas about origins and the nature of man. And the ideas are more in keeping with current events and current apparent knowledge, than the bible as a 2000+ year old document.
And yes, just as you say, I could very well be under the delusion of total blindness, and what I believe as a former Christian is just as much an interpretation as if I’d continued to be a Christian. If that blindness is ever lifted, I will then be the Atheist I always was. For if I AM currently afflicted by blindness, as others have already suggested, and if I AM just interpreting the bible like everyone else, as others beside you have already suggested; then all I AM now is an Atheist practicing a religion of my own creation.
Sorry, but I continue to maintain that the practice of interpretation, whether of the bible or some other collection of writings considered sacred, is a practical denial of the supernatural and its existence. It only shows how natural the idea of the supernatural really is. The practice of interpretation creates its own idea of the supernatural, and the God or gods that inhabit that interpretive supernatural, can only be the interpretive creations of man.
One would be better off to practice meditation like the Buddhists. Not that the result would necessarily be any less natural. But one would have a better chance of a greater understanding what the writers actually wrote, than if one outright practiced interpretation. And the idea of meditation is a biblical one, not just for Buddhists. Unless one wishes to interpret the idea of meditation as well. Whenever I’ve brought up meditation in the past to Christians, they just think the biblical use of the word means interpretation. Makes me laugh and then just shake my head. How easily interpretation comes to man, natural man.
Meditation just means to “think deeply or carefully about (something)†(Oxford Dictionary). That implies, of course, that one knows and understands what that something actually is. Not a knowledge or understanding of that something according to one’s own interpretation of what they think it is.
FC