Romans 2:1-5:"Judgment and the Judgmental"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 2:1 Therefore² you are without excuse,³ whoever you are,⁴ when you judge someone else.⁵ For on whatever grounds⁶ you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth⁷ against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think,⁸ whoever you are, when you judge⁹ those who practice such things and yet do them yourself,¹⁰ that you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know¹¹ that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness¹² and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!¹³

Notes:

¹ sn Rom 2:1–29 presents unusual difficulties for the interpreter. There have been several major approaches to the chapter and the group(s) it refers to:

1. Rom 2:14 refers to Gentile Christians, not Gentiles who obey the Jewish law.
2. Paul in Rom 2 is presenting a hypothetical viewpoint: If anyone could obey the law, that person would be justified, but no one can.
3. The reference to “the ones who do the law” in 2:13 are those who “do” the law in the right way, on the basis of faith, not according to Jewish legalism.
4. Rom 2:13 only speaks about Christians being judged in the future, along with such texts as Rom 14:10 and 2 Cor 5:10.
5. Paul’s material in Rom 2 is drawn heavily from Diaspora Judaism, so that the treatment of the law presented here cannot be harmonized with other things Paul says about the law elsewhere (E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, 123); another who sees Rom 2 as an example of Paul’s inconsistency in his treatment of the law is H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law [WUNT], 101–9.
6. The list of blessings and curses in Deut 27–30 provide the background for Rom 2; the Gentiles of 2:14 are Gentile Christians, but the condemnation of Jews in 2:17–24 addresses the failure of Jews as a nation to keep the law as a whole (A. Ito, ”Romans 2: A Deuteronomistic Reading,” JSNT 59 [1995]: 21-37).

² tn Some interpreters (e.g., C. K. Barrett, Romans [HNTC], 43) connect the inferential Διό (dio, “therefore”) with 1:32a, treating 1:32b as a parenthetical comment by Paul.

³ tn That is, “you have nothing to say in your own defense” (so translated by TCNT).

⁴ tn Grk “O man.”

⁵ tn Grk “Therefore, you are without excuse, O man, everyone [of you] who judges.”

⁶ tn Grk “in/by (that) which.”

⁷ tn Or “based on truth.”

⁸ tn Grk “do you think this,” referring to the clause in v. 3b.

⁹ tn Grk “O man, the one who judges.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “and do them.” The other words are supplied to bring out the contrast implied in this clause.

¹¹ tn Grk “being unaware.”

¹² tn Grk “hardness.” Concerning this imagery, see Jer 4:4; Ezek 3:7; 1 En. 16:3.

¹³ tn Grk “in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: I almost posted the last message along with this one in the same post. I think it is essential for anyone looking at Romans 1:24-32 to make sure they REALLY focus on this passage. For me, Paul draws the audience into a good "head-nodding" session on all "those" bad people - and then snaps them back to reality with the punchline here: you are "those bad people" so get off your high horse.

As opposed to the critic who questioned the authorship (and intellectual depth) of Romans 1:18-2:5; I think this is one of the most important sections of scripture. Here is a review of Paul's argument here - minus the details:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them . . . So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened . . . Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions . . . And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done . . . Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. And do you think, whoever you are, when you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, and yet do not know that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Carl presents that Paul's point here is that the people who do the things on "vice list" between 26 and 32 are wrong; those that approve and support those that do such things are worse; and those who judge others that do those things (while they do some/any of them themselves) are worst of all.

Amen!

Read more!

Romans 1:24-32:Textual Issue?

The crosspost at Street Prophets brought on an interesting discussion. Usually between the commentaries at Bible.Org and the notes to the New English Translation (NET) most of the serious textual issues with passages are brought up and discussed. Usually. I guess not so much this time:

I wouldn't call this "revelation". At least not the unspiritual hodge-podge that is strung along after 1:17 (running all the way to verse 8 of Chap 2 in my opinion). It juts into the document like a page of emotional notes inserted by a novice. It’s a series of low reflections trying to hitch a ride on a great letter simply on the brute strength of a few stray scriptural allusions and some lurid detail. It is a poor litany of unregenerate sentiment and philosophic drivel, the dross of a lesser mind than Paul’s - one who cannot approach the level of Paul’s genius.

In my opinion the 22 verses starting at 1:18 bear a tone and form that are distinctly different from that of the Epistle as a whole - not to mention the jumble of uncharitable and uncouth words that do not occur anywhere else in Paul.

I say, accept it at your risk. What I believe is that Jesus himself will hold every fundamentalist responsible for emphasizing this kind of pre-Christian stuff in place of his (or Paul’s) true mission and message.

I asked for some sources and got a very good one:

I find that several ancient Greek manuscripts comprising the most complete collections of NT witings are missing key portions of the first 3 chapters of Romans.

Chief among which, from those called the "Western" group of texts [here is one discussion]:

"D" codex Claromontanus, missing Rom 1:1-7 and 1:27-30
"F" codex Augiensis (in both Greek and Latin), missing Rom 1:1 to 3:19
"G" codex Boernerianus, missing Rom 1:1-5 and 2:16-25

And from those called the "Alexandrian" group:
"C" codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, missing Rom 2:5 to 3:21
"P" codex Porphyrianus, missing Rom 2:15 to 3:5

I do not seek to imply that the gaps in these texts suggest the presence of bogus writing in the "fuller" versions (Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus, for example). But I believe it is rational to conjecture that some of those gaps might have been created as a means of ending the question of strange or variant texts among the earliest pieces of paper on which the Epistle circulated. Where a strange hand or spirit was noticed, eliminate the passage (especially if the same thought appears elsewhere in the Epistle).

The distinct variety of styles present in the Pauline Epistles (between Romans and Ephesians for example) has been a long-debated question. Here I am talking about an abrupt change of style within the first chapter of one Epistle.

But all of the scholars who have proposed interpolations in the text of Romans (profs. H. Weisse and D. Volter in the 19th Century, to name 2) are (rightly, I think) accused of the sins of subjective judgment and arbitrary decision. So I offer my theory only as a personal guideline.

This seems to be an admission that there is no solid uncontested scholarship on this; and that this is subjective for him as well. My question still is:

Anyone know of something I can look at that discusses the textual issue here?

Back to the comment:

I’m saying Romans 1:18 to about 2:3 (I was rash to push it to the 9th verse) sounds to me like rehash and bad faith, it doesn’t sound like revelation, and it doesn’t sound like Paul at his highest inspiration. What I find in it that is at all worthy is said better elsewhere in the Epistle or in other scripture.

However, your statement is not correct

[Me:] this has been attributed to Paul very nearly universally since the earliest of compilations of Paul's letters - and therefore seen by people who knew Paul.

The first "compilations of Paul's letters" were early, but, with respect to the portion of canonical text in question here, I don't think you can go back earlier than 150 AD with those "attributions" to Paul you mention. I didn't find any in the Apostolic Fathers or Justin Martyr, for example.

I really meant authorship in my comment; but I will pick up this challenge anyway. I think it is hard to find anything to support anything prior to 150AD really, so this is quite a challenge. Elsewhere, the critic accepted the following 4 folks as Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus. I will accept that as a given - and add Clement of Alexandria. Certainly, he was not an Apostolic Father - he was a student of Tatian - however he was one of the founders of Christian literature along with Irenaeus; and Origen was his student. Alexandria became the "brains" of Christianity while Antioch was still its heart. He was in the last 30 years of the second century - but long before the codexs the critic has mentioned. So, I have broadened "before 150" to "second century and before".

Now, short of someone saying the links I am about to give are not by the above four Fathers, then I found allusions to Romans 1:18-32 in two of the four, and outright quotes in one of them. The links:

1. Justin Martyr: none I found
2. Clement of Rome: Verse 32 (paraphrase);
3. Tatian: verse 20 (paraphrase)
4. Clement of Alexandria: Verses 21, 23 and 25, 22
5. Irenaeus: Verses 18, 21, 25, 28;

I restricted myself to two works at the site:

• ANF01: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus by Schaff, Philip; and
• Fathers of the Second Century by Schaff, Philip.

I believe this meets the requirement to find use of Romans 1:18-32 clearly cited by an Apostolic Father: Irenaeus

However, it doesn't really deal with the textual issue, just the documentary evidence. So, what do you all think about that?

Read more!

Romans 1:24-32:God Gave Them Over

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over⁴⁸ in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor⁴⁹ their bodies among themselves.⁵⁰ 25 They⁵¹ exchanged the truth of God for a lie⁵² and worshiped and served the creation⁵³ rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones,⁵⁴ 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women⁵⁵ and were inflamed in their passions⁵⁶ for one another. Men⁵⁷ committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God,⁵⁸ God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.⁵⁹ 29 They are filled⁶⁰ with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with⁶¹ envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers,⁶² heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know⁶³ God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die,⁶⁴ they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.⁶⁵

Notes:

⁴⁸ sn Possibly an allusion to Ps 81:12

⁴⁹ tn The genitive articular infinitive τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι (tou atimazesthai, “to dishonor”) has been taken as (1) an infinitive of purpose; (2) an infinitive of result; or (3) an epexegetical (i.e., explanatory) infinitive, expanding the previous clause.

⁵⁰ tn Grk “among them.”

⁵¹ tn Grk “who.” The relative pronoun was converted to a personal pronoun and, because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁵² tn Grk “the lie.”

⁵³ tn Or “creature, created things.”

⁵⁴ tn Grk “for their females exchanged the natural function for that which is contrary to nature.” The term χρῆσις (chrēsis) has the force of “sexual relations” here (L&N 23.65).

⁵⁵ tn Grk “likewise so also the males abandoning the natural function of the female.”

⁵⁶ tn Grk “burned with intense desire” (L&N 25.16).

⁵⁷ tn Grk “another, men committing…and receiving,” continuing the description of their deeds. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁵⁸ tn Grk “and just as they did not approve to have God in knowledge.”

⁵⁹ tn Grk “the things that are improper.”

⁶⁰ tn Grk “being filled” or “having been filled,” referring to those described in v. 28. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁶¹ tn Grk “malice, full of,” continuing the description. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁶² tn Or “promise-breakers.”

⁶³ tn Grk “who, knowing…, not only do them but also approve…” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁶⁴ tn Grk “are worthy of death.”

⁶⁵ sn “Vice lists” like vv. 28–32 can be found elsewhere in the NT in Matt 15:19; Gal 5:19–21; 1 Tim 1:9–10; and 1 Pet 4:3. An example from the intertestamental period can be found in Wis 14:25–26.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: For over 12 years as a follower of Christ I was able to say - when confronted during the "culture wars" - that I had never been in a church where the subject of homosexuality had come up in a sermon. Since I have always attended expositional churches, I would only have heard such a message if one of my pastors had worked their way through one of the three or four places in scripture where it was mentioned.

Technically, I can still say that - I was not attending Cedar Mill Bible July 6th of last year when this message was actually given. However, since I am going through this sermon series at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets I guess I no longer have that out. Now, you can also listen to a theologically conservative, Evangelical pastor handle this topic. I will say that I think Carl did an awesome job getting to the point of these verses - and that wasn't homosexuality. Tell me what you think.

Regretfully, the focus of this section often gets lost on verses 26-27. I am not going to say that Paul did not consider sexual sin to be important - he did. You can see that in 1 Corinthians 6:

18 Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body” – but the immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.

Therefore, I will not say that in the "vice list" from 26-32 that Paul did not intend to put sexual sin first. However, I will say that it is still one thing on a long list. I will also say that Carl may be right: Paul chose homosexuality as the example of wrong sexual desires because it was the clearest example of the dichotomy between our created nature and our human nature. Who really knows - Paul didn't explain it.

More importantly to me, the key words are ". . . gave them over" This is critical here: I believe there are two different versions of "natural". The first is - as Carl and others have called it - the created design of God. The second is our own human (fallen) natures. That is two different forms of "natural". What this passage says is that the entire "vice list" is indeed natural (in the second sense) for us as humans - but not what we were designed to be. Indeed, that this is part of our human nature is the reason Christ said:

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’

What God does when we "suppress the truth by [our] unrighteousness" is give us over to keep doing it - whatever "it" is. He essentially says: "if that is the way you want to do things, then I will remove all My restraints and give you over to doing things your way. Have at it. Have fun. Hopefully, you will bottom out and no longer be able to ignore the truth you have been suppressing." In other words - as Carl Palmer put it - God's punishment for our sin is more sin.

The overall point of the passage is pointed to in the beginning of Romans 2 (next time) - and leads up to the summary statement near the end of the first 3 chapters:

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

That, to me, is the point we need to take from this section of scripture. Paul, in my mind, was trying to come up with a list that everyone would be included in - so that "no one can boast". We all have - to some degree or another - "suppressed the truth with [our] unrighteousness" - all of us. We have all incurred the wrath of God so that He gives us over to continue doing these unrighteousness things if that is what we wish - He will not stop you. God is not going to step in and take our personal "dishonorable passions" and "depraved minds" from us as some would pray. We all - every day - have to fight the battle to be what we were designed to be rather than what comes naturally to us.

So, make the list from Romans 1:24-32 whatever you want it to be - just do not leave your own dishonorable passions and depraved mind out. Whoever you are - you are included here. Indeed, you should really only be worried about the things on the list that apply to you; and not the ones that apply to others. I think you should forget those - please:

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Appendix: Textual Issue?

Read more!

Romans 1:18-23:The Righteous Wrath of God

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people³⁹ who suppress the truth by their⁴⁰ unrighteousness,⁴¹ 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,⁴² because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people⁴³ are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts⁴⁴ were darkened. 22 Although they claimed⁴⁵ to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings⁴⁶ or birds or four-footed animals⁴⁷ or reptiles.

Notes:

³⁹ tn The genitive ἀνθρώπων could be taken as an attributed genitive, in which case the phase should be translated “against all ungodly and unrighteous people” (cf. “the truth of God” in v. 25 which is also probably an attributed genitive). C. E. B. Cranfield takes the section 1:18–32 to refer to all people (not just Gentiles), while 2:1–3:20 points out that the Jew is no exception (Romans [ICC], 1:104–6; 1:137–38).

⁴⁰ tn “Their” is implied in the Greek, but is supplied because of English style.

⁴¹ tn Or “by means of unrighteousness.” Grk “in (by) unrighteousness.”

⁴² tn Grk “is manifest to/in them.”

⁴³ tn Grk “they”; the referent (people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴⁴ tn Grk “heart.”

⁴⁵ tn The participle φάσκοντες (phaskontes) is used concessively here.

⁴⁶ tn Grk “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God in likeness of an image of corruptible man.” Here there is a wordplay on the Greek terms ἄφθαρτος (aphthartos, “immortal, imperishable, incorruptible”) and φθαρτός (phthartos, “mortal, corruptible, subject to decay”).

⁴⁷ sn Possibly an allusion to Ps 106:19–20.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet:

• No amount of knowledge, education, technology, cultural advance, sophistication, etc. – has overcome the problem of sin in the human heart.
• God is unalterably opposed to everything that mars His creation and good purpose.
• The problem of sin is not just wrong behavior, but wrong thought patterns that lead to wrong behavior.
• The great sin is suppressing the truth of God – and replacing Him with some part of His creation.
• There are great benefits of knowing “the wrath of God”:

1. Why does Paul begin with “the wrath of God”?
2. How is “the wrath of God” related to “the righteousness of God”?
3. How is God’s “wrath” our only hope for a sinless eternity?
4. What can be known about God from creation? What does creation not reveal about Him?
5. Do we “suppress the truth”?
6. In what ways do people today “exchange the glory of God” for something else?

Carl Palmer: The wrath of God is not to be confused with human anger - that sudden outburst that flies off the handle.

The wrath of God is the settled, consistant, pure, deeply felt, eternal rejection of evil

One of the clearest analogies I have heard is in the audio when Carl talks about a mother and her hatred of the cancer she is battling in her son.

Walter Taylor:

Thus the whole section from verse 18 on is couched in what Hays calls mythico-historical language, in which the whole pagan world is implicated. Paul's "exchange of truth for a lie," verse 25, is his way of expressing the primordial sin that continues as the fundamental stance of humanity. The charge is a corporate indictment of pagan society, not a narrative about any one individual.

My comments: I have quoted this passage a fair number of times. First, because it is one of those "natural law" kind of passages; and second because it is a run-up to the laundry list of "sins" at the end of Romans 1 including the section on homosexuality.

The natural law element is important. One of those questions presented to followers of Christ is "how can God send someone to hell if they just didn't know?" Paul presents here that they do know - that "they are without excuse". Not only are God's attributes visible in His creation, but one of the translations of verse 19 is that "what can be known about God is manifest in them". Paul then is saying that not believing in God is not a matter of insufficient information, but a matter of will - we decide not to believe what is manifest both in the world and within ourselves. When the truth of God begins to rise up around us or within us we "push it down" - we suppress it. See also:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the sky displays his handiwork.
2 Day after day it speaks out;
night after night it reveals his greatness.
3 There is no actual speech or word,
nor is its voice literally heard.

Next: Romans 1:24-32 -- "God Gave Them Over"

Read more!

How do Followers of Christ Know What to Follow?

I am not going to get into all the things, people, movements, cults, etc. that some followers of Christ follow - just how the plan is supposed to work (at least according to Christ).

We are to follow Christ. However, how do we know what to follow? This post was inspired by conversations at Street Prophets with some folks who are "red letter" Christians - focusing on the words of Christ Himself only - and other strains of folks who take their guidance in different ways.

This is the exchange that triggered this post:

Moi: Jesus made it pretty clear that the only judge was God; and the only true guide was the Holy Spirit resident in us.

Other: No . . . the true guide was his only begotten son that he sent here to save ourselves from ourselves. To point out the errors of our ways and to direct us to the path that the JUDGE wants us to follow. What judge here or in heaven will reward you if his instructions are not followed?

I was wrong: God isn't the judge, Jesus is actually. These are both persons of the same triune God - but it is the person of Jesus, sitting on the right hand of God, who will judge us and "the Nations". Technically, it is also Jesus who leads us - but how did He say that would be accomplished:

John 16:4 . . . “I did not tell you these things from the beginning because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Instead your hearts are filled with sadness because I have said these things to you. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment – 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.

So, there are no easy "written in book" answers in life. Now, those that know me know that I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. They also know I believed it is the inspired Word of God - and that it is still valid today. However, as Paul pointed out,

1 Corinthians 2:9 But just as it is written, “Things that no eye has seen, or ear heard, or mind imagined, are the things God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. 13 And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 14 The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ.

It is the Spirit of God resident in us that gives us the "mind of Christ" so that we can understand what God wants us to understand. This is why it has never been effective to quote Bible verses to folks who do not have the Spirit of God to lead them - for them the truth of God is nonsense. It is effective for a follower of Christ to go to the Word of God often and deeply to see what the Spirit of God wants the follower to understand about the Will of God for their life.

Also, we know Jesus focused not on the actions we perform, but the heart behind those actions - the reasons we act. If our actions follow where the Holy Spirit leads us - then we glorify God. Those same actions, for other reasons, may not glorify God at all - but only our own reason, desires, etc. They may only indicate, as the Old Testament often said, that we "did what was right in our own eyes".

Read more!

A Comment I Made Elsewhere

This was a post-size comment I made over at Street Prophets in a diary called "End Times: A set of prophecies or a set of hallucinations?". The real answer to that question in my mind is: "who knows?". Typically, it appears to me that prophecy isn't:

1. proved until it comes to pass
2. clear until it comes to pass

So, read the diary - and then this comment (go to the link if you want to see the responses):

* * * * * * * * * *

There are so many things here that are just wrong. Then, there are the things here that are certainly not agreed to by all New Testament scholars. I find it hard to take your source as an expert.

Let's start with just plain wrong:

Eventually, the city fell, and the people were slaughtered. Those remaining were expelled from the land. This is the time of the Diaspora--the scattering of the Jews, who were dispersed around the Mediterranean--Asia Minor, Greece, Northern Africa and Europe.

Actually,

Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish community and its scholars.

The next

The author, who we know only as John, had lived through the horrors that accompanied fall of the city.

is only really, really wrong if it means the author was actually in the city during the siege. John was actually in Ephesis in Asia Minor, where he had gone after the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome in the early 60's. He took over Paul's duties with the church there. Christians, in general, had been forced out of Jerusalem and Judea prior to the Great Jewish War.

[The Christians still in Judea, etc. sat out the war in Pella. Indeed, their unwillingness to involve themselves in this war cemented the final split of the Christians and the Jews.]

Then,

When you are dealing with an end times fundamentalist Christian, you are dealing with a person who believes that the Bible was written by God- God writes it and there is a secret code and if you are in the know you will know the code and the elect will know the code. The Bible itself becomes a magical book, a secret script.

Huh? Who believes this? What folks believe is that prophecy in scripture is never exact, is almost always drapped in allegory and symbolic language, and therefore the events (such as Christ's life) that are prophesied usually help clarify the prophesy when they occur. However, there is no "secret code" or "secret knowledge" - it is all written for all to see. Then, on to opinions not shared by all:

The people who actually knew Jesus, the twelve, none of them left writings for us. All of these writings are written well after the death of Jesus.

What is "well after"? What counts as "actually knowing Jesus"? Only three of the 12 are credited even by conservative scholars with New Testament works - John, Matthew, and Peter. However, James, probably Jesus' brother, probably knew him ;-) but wasn't one of the twelve. The Apostles accepted that Paul "knew" Jesus, at least after His resurrection - there is no other reason they would have accepted Paul into the church after his history. Luke and Mark have never been thought of as companions of Jesus - just companions of companions: Paul and Peter respectively. I think it is pretty clear that all of the New Testament works (except Revelations) were completed by 64AD (see Redating the New Testament or these Introductions for the arguments) - or within 30ish years of Jesus' death - and all within the possible lifetimes of the folks who knew him. They were almost all written to pass on knowledge to the church after it became clear that Jesus was not coming back immediately. I believe the earliest of the New Testament works was James (see article linked above) within 15 years of the death of Christ.

Narrowing to Revelations, there are two general views (with a bunch of other minor ones) - preterist (with postmillienialism and amillienialism) and premillienial - related to whether Revelations is looking at events already occurred (as the person interviewed believes); or is a prophetic work. It is interesting that the preterist view is key to replacement theology - that the Christian church has replaced the Jewish people in the promises of God. A small sliver of that group are the Reconstructionists - those real Dominionists - who believe that Revelations shows that only through destruction of what exists and replacement by the Church will God's Kingdom be advanced. These are the folks (along with the preterists in general) that believe God's Kingdom on earth is possible through the actions of Christians (or is spiritually here now).

The premillienialist on the other hand do not think that the events in 70AD resulted in the "end of the Age"; and that therefore the destruction of Jerusalem was not the event looked at in scripture. They believe that human Christians are not capable of creating a Kingdom of God on earth prior to the actual return of Christ to lead that Kingdom - and do not support the Dominionist idea that the governments on Earth must become Christian before Christ can return.

* * * * * * * * * *

I am thinking that last section on "end times" theological differences is pretty weak - it just isn't an area I concentrate on. Y'all can help me straighten out/deepen my understanding.

It isn't an area of interest because I am pretty sure it shouldn't be for a follower of Christ. He said to be ready, but He also made it pretty clear we would not see the scenario coming when it came. So, I think folks who are focused on when the end times are going to get here would be better off focusing on now. Tell me if you think I am wrong about that.

Read more!

Romans 1:16-17:The Gospel Unveils God's Righteousness

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.³⁴ 17 For the righteousness³⁵ of God is revealed in the gospel³⁶ from faith to faith,³⁷ just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”³⁸

Notes:

³⁴ sn Here the Greek refers to anyone who is not Jewish.

³⁵ tn The nature of the “righteousness” described here and the force of the genitive θεοῦ (“of God”) which follows have been much debated. (1) Some (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:98) understand “righteousness” to refer to the righteous status given to believers as a result of God’s justifying activity, and see the genitive “of God” as a genitive of source (= “from God”). (2) Others see the “righteousness” as God’s act or declaration that makes righteous (i.e., justifies) those who turn to him in faith, taking the genitive “of God” as a subjective genitive (see E. Käsemann, Romans, 25–30). (3) Still others see the “righteousness of God” mentioned here as the attribute of God himself, understanding the genitive “of God” as a possessive genitive (“God’s righteousness”).

³⁶ tn Grk “in it”; the referent (the gospel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³⁷ tn Or “by faith for faith,” or “by faith to faith.” There are many interpretations of the phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (ek pisteōs eis pistin). It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν). For a summary see J. Murray, Romans (NICNT), 1:363–74.

³⁸ sn A quotation from Hab 2:4.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet:

1. Are we “ashamed of the gospel”? What can we do about it?
2. What does “salvation” mean to you? How is our understanding of salvation “smaller” than Paul’s?
3. Can you describe God’s “righteousness” in a way anyone could understand?
4. Why do you think God chose the way of “faith” to save people and accomplish His purpose?

Next: Romans 1:18-23 -- "The Righteous Wrath of God"

Read more!

Romans 1:8-15:Paul's Desire to Come to Rome

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:8 First of all,²¹ I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit by preaching the gospel²² of his Son, is my witness that²³ I continually remember you 10 and I always ask²⁴ in my prayers, if perhaps now at last I may succeed in visiting you according to the will of God.²⁵ 11 For I long to see you, so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift²⁶ to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually comforted by one another’s faith,²⁷ both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware,²⁸ brothers and sisters,²⁹ that I often intended to come to you (and was prevented until now), so that I may have some fruit even among you, just as I already have among the rest of the Gentiles.³⁰ 14 I am a debtor³¹ both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 Thus I am eager³² also to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome.³³

Notes:

²¹ tn Grk “First.” Paul never mentions a second point, so J. B. Phillips translated “I must begin by telling you….”

²² tn Grk “whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel.”

²³ tn Grk “as.”

²⁴ tn Grk “remember you, always asking.”

²⁵ tn Grk “succeed in coming to you in the will of God.”

²⁶ sn Paul does not mean here that he is going to bestow upon the Roman believers what is commonly known as a “spiritual gift,” that is, a special enabling for service given to believers by the Holy Spirit. Instead, this is either a metonymy of cause for effect (Paul will use his own spiritual gifts to edify the Romans), or it simply means something akin to a blessing or benefit in the spiritual realm. It is possible that Paul uses this phrase to connote specifically the broader purpose of his letter, which is for the Romans to understand his gospel, but this seems less likely.

²⁷ tn Grk “that is, to be comforted together with you through the faith in one another.”

²⁸ sn The expression “I do not want you to be unaware [Grk ignorant]” also occurs in 1 Cor 10:1; 12:1; 1 Thess 4:13. Paul uses the phrase to signal that he is about to say something very important.

²⁹ tn Grk “brothers,” but the Greek word may be used for “brothers and sisters” or “fellow Christians” as here (cf. BDAG 18 s.v. ἀδελφός 1, where considerable nonbiblical evidence for the plural ἀδελφοί [adelphoi] meaning “brothers and sisters” is cited).

³⁰ tn Grk “in order that I might have some fruit also among you just as also among the rest of the Gentiles.”

³¹ tn Or “obligated.”

³² tn Or “willing, ready”; Grk “so my eagerness [is] to preach…” The word πρόθυμος (prothumos, “eager, willing”) is used only elsewhere in the NT in Matt 26:41 = Mark 14:38: “the spirit indeed is willing (πρόθυμος), but the flesh is weak.”

³³ map For location see JP4-A1.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet:

• Recapping Romans 1:1-7
  • Paul: This is who I am -- "a bondservant of Christ Jesus".
    What has God [life, politics, experience, etc] done in you?
  • Paul: This is my “Life Message” -- “by God's Grace set apart for the gospel of God”
    What are you called to?
  • Paul: This is the “Center” of my life -- “Jesus Christ our Lord”
    Who directs you [or] What is the center of your life?
  • Paul: This is who I am called to -- “all the Gentiles… To all in Rome”
    Who are you called to [or] who are the people you can influence?


• Questions to answer
  1. Do you think our “faith” should be “reported all over the world”? Why or why not?
  2. What do you think about the way we pray for people—as you read Paul’s comments about praying for the Romans?
  3. Do you think we should be “mutually encouraged by each other’s faith”? How?
  4. Do you see yourself as “obligated” (“a debtor”) to anyone because you are a Christian [or for any other reason]?
  5. Looking ahead:
     • In what way is “the gospel . . . the power of God”?
     • What do you think “a righteousness from God” means?

My comments:

Hopefully you are listening to the messages. This will not only give you some real knowledge about how a particular pastor at a particular church teaches from the Word of God -- and by extention either confirm or lay waste to any pre- (or mis-) conceptions about what Evangelical Christians really believe, teach, focus on, etc.

However, I know most of you are not - which is fine. You should, however, listen to this one. It has a practical method for examining scripture and moving its message practically into your life. This is not just Christian scripture, or really just scripture in general, but really any thing you read where you might draw lessons for your own life and actions.

Next: Romans 1:16-17 -- "The Gospel Unveils God's Righteousness"

Read more!

Romans 1:1-7:God's Gospel and Paul's Ministry

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:1 From Paul, ¹ a slave ² of Christ Jesus, ³ called to be an apostle, ⁴ set apart for the gospel of God. ⁵ 2 This gospel ⁶ he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son who was a descendant ⁷ of David with reference to the flesh, ⁸ 4 who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power ⁹ according to the Holy Spirit ¹⁰ by the resurrection ¹¹ from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him ¹² we have received grace and our apostleship ¹³ to bring about the obedience ¹⁴ of faith ¹⁵ among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. 6 You also are among them, ¹⁶ called to belong to Jesus Christ. ¹⁷ 7 To all those loved by God in Rome, ¹⁸ called to be saints: ¹⁹ Grace and peace to you ²⁰ from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!

Notes:

1 tn Grk “Paul.” The word “from” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the sender of the letter.

2 tn Traditionally, “servant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times...in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s “slave” or “servant” is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For someone who was Jewish this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

3 tc Many important mss, as well as several others (Ì26 א A G Ψ 33 1739 1881 Ï), have a reversed order of these words and read “Jesus Christ” rather than “Christ Jesus” (Ì10 B 81 pc). The meaning is not affected in either case, but the reading “Christ Jesus” is preferred as slightly more difficult and thus more likely the original (a scribe who found it would be prone to change it to the more common expression). At the same time, Paul is fond of the order “Christ Jesus,” especially in certain letters such as Romans, Galatians, and Philippians. As well, the later Pauline letters almost uniformly use this order in the salutations. A decision is difficult, but “Christ Jesus” is slightly preferred.

4 tn Grk “a called apostle.”

5 tn The genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (euangelion qeou, “the gospel of God”) could be translated as (1) a subjective genitive (“the gospel which God brings”) or (2) an objective genitive (“the gospel about God”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, an interplay between the two concepts is intended: The gospel which God brings is in fact the gospel about himself. However, in view of God’s action in v. 2 concerning this gospel, a subjective genitive notion (“the gospel which God brings”) is slightly preferred.

6 tn Grk “the gospel of God, which he promised.” Because of the length and complexity of this sentence in Greek, it was divided into shorter English sentences in keeping with contemporary English style. To indicate the referent of the relative pronoun (“which”), the word “gospel” was repeated at the beginning of v. 2.

7 tn Grk “born of the seed” (an idiom).

8 tn Grk “according to the flesh,” indicating Jesus’ earthly life, a reference to its weakness. This phrase implies that Jesus was more than human; otherwise it would have been sufficient to say that he was a descendant of David, cf. L. Morris, Romans, 44.

9 sn Appointed the Son-of-God-in-power. Most translations render the Greek participle ὁρισθέντος (Jorisqentos, from ὁρίζω, Jorizw) “declared” or “designated” in order to avoid the possible interpretation that Jesus was appointed the Son of God by the resurrection. However, the Greek term ὁρίζω is used eight times in the NT, and it always has the meaning “to determine, appoint.” Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. 3) and he was raised with power. This is similar to Matt 28:18 where Jesus told his disciples after the resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

10 tn Grk “spirit of holiness.” Some interpreters take the phrase to refer to Christ’s own inner spirit, which was characterized by holiness.

11 tn Or “by his resurrection.” Most interpreters see this as a reference to Jesus’ own resurrection, although some take it to refer to the general resurrection at the end of the age, of which Jesus’ resurrection is the first installment (cf. 1 Cor 15:23).

12 tn Grk “through whom.”

13 tn Some interpreters understand the phrase “grace and apostleship” as a hendiadys, translating “grace [i.e., gift] of apostleship.” The pronoun “our” is supplied in the translation to clarify the sense of the statement.

14 tn Grk “and apostleship for obedience.”

15 tn The phrase ὑπακοὴν πίστεως has been variously understood as (1) an objective genitive (a reference to the Christian faith, “obedience to [the] faith”); (2) a subjective genitive (“the obedience faith produces [or requires]”); (3) an attributive genitive (“believing obedience”); or (4) as a genitive of apposition (“obedience, [namely] faith”) in which “faith” further defines “obedience.” These options are discussed by C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC), 1:66. Others take the phrase as deliberately ambiguous; see D. B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans: Part I: The Meaning of ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (Rom 1:5; 16:26),” WTJ 52 (1990): 201-24.

16 tn Grk “among whom you also are called.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation. The NIV, with its translation “And you also are among those who are called,” takes the phrase ἐν οἳς ἐστε to refer to the following clause rather than the preceding, so that the addressees of the letter (“you also”) are not connected with “all the Gentiles” mentioned at the end of v. 5. It is more likely, however, that the relative pronoun οἳς has τοῖς ἔθνεσιν as its antecedent, which would indicate that the church at Rome was predominantly Gentile.

17 tn Grk “called of Jesus Christ.”

18 map For location see JP4-A1.

19 tn Although the first part of v. 7 is not a complete English sentence, it maintains the “From...to” pattern used in all the Pauline letters to indicate the sender and the recipients. Here, however, there are several intervening verses (vv. 2-6), which makes the first half of v. 7 appear as an isolated sentence fragment.

20 tn Grk “Grace to you and peace.”

My comments: At Street Prophets there was a diary examing the ideas of obedience/slavery/submission vs consent. That theme arises is these first 7 verses. The NIV that Carl preaches from uses the word "slave", some use "servant", and it should be "bondservant" - but in any case Paul sees himself as the servant or slave of Jesus, or the Gospel, for the Glory of God. However, there is no way, I think, to not see that Paul is in full consent with that status.

The subtle differences in those three words are important:

• Servant: could be a slave, or could just be hired.
• Bondservant: has sold themselves into slavery.
• slave: could be a bondservant, and also could be someone forced into slavery.

This is a real difference in discussing Paul's view of himself as a slave of Christ - bondservant is certainly a better word; but is it too archaic?

It is interesting to me that the translator's notes pinpoint the change in translation from "slave" to "servant" to the period of early American history. I think particularly in the west, and most clearly in the United States, the idea of autonomy and freedom is most important. We do not wish to see ourselves as servants or slaves to anyone (even God) or any cause (including what is right and just). We want to be independent partners with God, rather than lovingly doing His will to perhaps our own personal detriment. We are, perhaps more than anywhere else on the planet, the center of our own personal universe - a universe that is here to serve us and not us to serve it.

Further, the idea of the "obedience of faith" or "obedience from faith" is deep. Do we obey because we have faith, or do we develop faith through obeying - or both (that is what I think)?

Also in these first seven verses is Paul's understanding of why the resurrection was important - it proved that Jesus was the long promised Messiah. It also was the point where Jesus, born in weakness as a human, assumed (or re-assumed in my mind) the position/power of Son.

Finally, for those who didn't get through all the audio, the word "saint" is not about behavior - it is about position.

Next: Romans 1:8-15 -- "Paul's Desire to Come to Rome"

Read more!

Romans Series:Introduction

You may know that I left Cedar Mill Bible Church to help plant Westport Church. My wife and I have now gone back to Cedar Mill. We got back in the middle of a series on Romans by (mainly) Carl Palmer.

Romans is my favorite book in the Bible, and Carl is my favorite Bible teacher (at least within my limited experience). I haven't really gone back and listened to his sermons on the first seven books of Romans - so I am going to do that now. I am going to link the audio of the message; and post the text that Carl taught through. Where I have thoughts - I will write about them.

Mainly, I wish to simply give folks who find this an ongoing place to discuss this book and its important themes. It is my plan to post on Sundays and Thursdays - at least until I catch up with Carl's one year head start.

Since the book is controversial, as is Paul in certain circles - I wish to point to the "rules of engagement" for discussion at Brain Cramps:

1. The golden rule
2. You cannot read minds.
3. People are not evil.
4. Debates are not for winning.
5. You make mistakes.
6. Not everyone cares as much as you.
7. Engaging is hard work.
8. Differences can be subtle.
9. Give up quietly.

So, jump right in an listen to Carl's introduction to the Series. His general outline of the book handed out during the service is here.

Carl presents these verses as the theme of the whole book:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.34 17 For the righteousness 35 of God is revealed in the gospel 36 from faith to faith, 37 just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.” 38

Notes:

34 sn Here the Greek refers to anyone who is not Jewish.

35 tn The nature of the “righteousness” described here and the force of the genitive θεοῦ (“of God”) which follows have been much debated. (1) Some (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans [ICC], 1:98) understand “righteousness” to refer to the righteous status given to believers as a result of God’s justifying activity, and see the genitive “of God” as a genitive of source (= “from God”). (2) Others see the “righteousness” as God’s act or declaration that makes righteous (i.e., justifies) those who turn to him in faith, taking the genitive “of God” as a subjective genitive (see E. Käsemann, Romans, 25–30). (3) Still others see the “righteousness of God” mentioned here as the attribute of God himself, understanding the genitive “of God” as a possessive genitive (“God’s righteousness”).

36 tn Grk “in it”; the referent (the gospel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

37 tn Or “by faith for faith,” or “by faith to faith.” There are many interpretations of the phrase ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν (ek pisteōs eis pistin). It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν). For a summary see J. Murray, Romans (NICNT), 1:363–74.

38 sn A quotation from Hab 2:4.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Feel free to chat the rules of debate, the overall importance of the book, and whatever else you can think of related to Carl's opening message.

Next: Romans 1:1-7 -- "God's Gospel and Paul's Ministry"

Read more!

Let's See if I can Blog Again

I miss this place - and have perhaps carved out the time to come back and chat about some things that matter to me.

In the near term, I am going to blog on a series by the pastor at my old, and now my new, church on the book of Romans.

Also, a look at consent vs. Biblical obediance/submission is coming - I do not really think there should be a "vs" in that statement. I plan to get back to two or three posts a week; and hopefully say something useful for the Kingdom.

Hope the three people who read me in the past find me again.

Read more!

Romans Series:Index

Carl Palmer is the Teaching Pastor at my church. He is an expositional pastor, and takes a book of scripture and goes through it deeply. During that time pauses will be taken for other messages, but essentially he takes the time to really look at a Bible book while he teaches on it.

The book right now is Romans. I was gone for a while from the church, so I came back right at the beginning of Chapter 8. He has given 34 messages up to this point covering Romans 1:1 - 8:18. Again, he takes it slow.

I am going to work through it here. Carl teaches from the NIV; but the text I am going to post is going to be from the NET instead.

"Introduction"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets

Romans 1:

• 1-7 -- "God's Gospel and Paul's Ministry"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets
• 8-15 -- "Paul's Desire to Come to Rome"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets
• 16-17 -- "The Gospel Unveils God's Righteousness"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets
• 18-23 -- "The Righteous Wrath of God"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets
• 24-32 -- "God Gave Them Over"; Brain Cramps; Street Prophets. "Textual Issue?"; Brain Cramps

Romans 2:

Read more!

Christian Carnival CCL (250)

It is an honor to once more be hosting the Christian Carnival - especially such an important number like 250. This is very close to the 5th anniversary post, and it is such a nice round number.

Certainly, as many who have watched my blog know, I am pretty inactive as a blogger right now. Indeed, this carnival may (or may not) be the last I host - and my time constraints are apparent in its lateness (for which I apologize). Also, I have had to withdraw from the team that manages the Carnival because of those time constraints.

Which is the point of the introduction here. The Christian Carnival always needs help:

• It needs posts
• It needs hosts
• It needs folks to do the work behind the scenes
• It needs to be promoted

As with any ministry (and this is both a ministry and a mission), there are never enough folks to actually do the work. If you appreciate the Carnival on a weekly level, then there are many small things that you can help in. Contact Jeremy Pierce if you want to know what they are.

The posts are in the order in which they were received; and it is another great batch of submissions:

Tiffany Partin presents "God Is Still On The Throne!" posted at Fathom Deep: Sounding the Depths of God.

Am I bummed about the results of the election yesterday? You betcha! Am I sad that our country elected someone who supports the murder of our unborn children? No doubt about it! Am I crying in my coffee and chewing my fingernails to the quick over it this morning? Never!

You may say, "WHAT?"

Erica presents "A Call to Prayer" posted at Erica's Bible Study and Journal.

Many of us who call on the name of God spent time praying about this election. I would like to encourage you to continue to pray for this nation and its government and let it become a part of your regular life.

FMF presents "How You Handle a Little is How You'll Handle a Lot" posted at Free Money Finance.

Whoever can be trusted with little can also be trusted with much.

Martin presents "Theism implies Open theism" posted at Enigmania.

. . . this post may seem a bit philosophical, but its a simple enough thought-experiment about how the God of the philosophers ought actually to be closer to the God of Abraham et al. On the other hand, Open theism is regarded by many as heretical (either way, the post could probably use some criticism :)

Jeff presents "Word of Faith Healing Promises" posted at ReturningKing.com.

Another entire category of defective doctrines stemming from the Word of Faith movement are those doctrines concerning the guarantee of physical health.

Good Thing presents "A Million Good Things" posted at A Million Good Things.

Editor: There is no particular indication that this is a Christian site, or author - but it seems like a worthy project; and a great future resource for Christians who are taught to focus on God's blessings - but, like all humans, may lose track of those "good things" in the midst of real life

ChristianPF presents "5 Bible verses about money every Christian should know" posted at Money in the Bible Christian Personal Finance Blog.

Drew Tatusko presents "Hell is Not Populated, but its Existence is Among Us" posted at Notes From Off Center.

Hell exists and has its effects felt on earth now just as with the Kingdom of God (also a vivid image of Jesus - a future fulfillment of the Kingdom of God with present effects). However, it will not be “populated” until the general resurrection which again Jesus describes vividly.

Trent Cotton presents "Leading through Turbulence- Moses" posted at Christian Business Consulting.

With all of the news about the layoffs, the market crashing, international woes, or even just the fact that your car didn’t start today, it’s good to know that God gave us leaders to look to.

Annette presents "prayer that makes sense to a little boy" posted at Fish and Cans.

Prayers are answered for a toddler. :)

Weekend Fisher presents "The Triumph of God over Chaos" posted at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.

Have you ever gotten your days and nights switched so that you were sleeping and waking out of your habit and pattern? At times like that I often feel tired, and even when fully awake and energetic, I tend to be unhappy that I am fully awake at such an odd hour, knowing that it will only perpetuate another day out of rhythm.

The Bible Archive's Rey takes a break from heresy by having Guest Blogger Scott from Prodigal Thought post some very orthodox thoughts on the local church in "Church 102: A Further Step Forward".

Now that we have somewhat established a foundation from which we can work with, it would probably be best to move on to more practical matters. If church is truly about the people of Christ, obviously committed to God’s heart and kingdom purposes, then we have to ask what that means for our everyday lives, right?

ChrisB presents "Mercy vs Sacrifice" posted at Homeward Bound.

Hosea told us God desires "mercy not sacrifice." Does that mean God didn't require a sacrifice to forgive us of our sins?

Henry Neufeld presents "On Being Christian and Killing People" posted at Threads from Henry's Web.

Some rambling reflections on being a Christian veteran on veteran's day.

Jody Neufeld presents "Why Do Some Marriages Survive and Others Perish?" posted at Jody Along the Path.

There seems to be one key factor in keeping a marriage together.

Diane R presents "The Progressives" posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.

The term Progressives is being used today both in politics and in Christianity. What exactly does it mean?

Wickle presents The annual war on the "War on Christmas" posted at A True Believer's Blog.

Wickle hopes that this year we might spare the country The annual war on the "War on Christmas" and instead act with peace and charity.

Jeremy Pierce presents Divine Supererogation posted at Parableman.

Are there things God does that he has no obligation to do? Does God always do the best possible thing to do? Surprisingly, commonsense answers to those questions might lead you to opposite views.

One nice thing - other than these great posts - about the Christian Carnival is that there is always one forming: send your submissions to blog carnival for the next Carnival.

Enjoy

Read more!

What Kind of Conservative Are I?

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House has listed some points that he believes do, and do not, define being a political conservative. It seems like a worthy task:

• the Bush Administration has been anything except my version of conservative


• the Obama presidency is going to be anything but conservative


• a lot of folks who say they are conservative are anything but conservative.

All of that is, of course, purely subjective on my part -- so I, like Rick, need to be clear on my definition of conservative. Rick is a political conservative, and an atheist; and I am a political conservative and a theologically conservative Christian. So, let us start with a division there: while my religious beliefs do inform my political beliefs, these are entirely separate categories. I know political conservatives who are either unreligious, or very liberal in a theological sense. I know theologically conservative folk who are liberal politically. I like a lot of what I see of Rick's political ideology - and of course think his theology is absolutely wrong. So, we really have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions about someone's political ideology from their theology; and vice versa.

Another problem with being a political conservative is the company I keep. Moran nails it:

For it appears to me from my vantage point that we are entering a period where someone’s conservative bona fides will not depend on what he believes as an intellectual frame of reference that informs his stand on issues as much as how much he agrees with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter . . .

. . . there lies a whole slew of litmus tests where many of these conservabots will brook no opposition, no nuance, no independent thinking whatsoever.

A partial listing:

If you are pro-choice to one degree or another, you are not a conservative.

If you are pro-choice to one degree or another, you are not a conservative.

If you criticize the war or the military, you are not a conservative and unpatriotic to boot.

If you say anything nice about a liberal anytime, anywhere – if you agree with a liberal on anything or praise a liberal past, present, or future – you are not a conservative.

If you don’t agree that torturing the enemy is necessary and/or good, you are not a conservative.

If you say anything nice about any media besides conservative mags, talk radio and Fox News, you are not a conservative.

If you believe in evolution, you are not a conservative and are probably going to hell.

If you believe that there is a possibility of man made global warming based on scientific evidence collected so far, you are not a conservative and should probably be committed.

If you believe that Barack Obama is just a stupid liberal and not a clone of Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one, you are not a conservative.

If you believe that Democrats don’t have horns, a tail, and a pitchfork, you are not a conservative.

And most of all, unless you believe Sarah Palin is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, the bees knees, the cat’s meow, the apple of our eye, and the greatest thing to hit the conservative movement and the Republican party since Robert Taft first uttered the immortal words “US out of the UN” – you are not a conservative.

The problem with all those issues (and most of the things that "progressives" use to define being "progressive") is that none of them have anything to do with a theory of government or governance - nor any other historic definition of conservatism. They are all superficial and non-ideological guages. To put it into theological terms, they are all about behaving and appearing righteous, without any discussion of the reasons for the behavior or who the behavior serves: there is nothing about the heart or really even about the head. All of that was about partisanship and not political theory.

Yet another problem with being a conservative (or a progressive really) is that there is little source of good discussion about political theory as opposed to issue-oriented partisanship. If the coming election of Barack Obama - and a whole slew of liberals to Congress - is really going to mean that political conservatives really start to discuss what it means to call yourself a conservative then that is great. That may happen after all the blame gets tossed around. More likely we will have at least 4 years of folks opposing everything their opponent supports, even if that opposition has no coherant political or philosophical framework informing it. That is pretty much what we have seen from the left for the last period of time. They are fortunate that the Bush administration was fairly incompetant - they are not winning this election because they have put forward a coherant vision. They are winning because they oppose President Bush and he is not loved.

How do I relate to Rick Moran's principles for his conservatism?

I believe first and foremost in American exceptionalism - the idea that we are a different country and people from any other nation on earth.

Of course the United States is exceptional on an historical level; and in the world today. Does this mean better - especially in some form invoking superiority or the right to expect other nations to attempt to duplicate what we are? No. It does mean, to me, that "to whom much is given much is expected". Also, this is where my theological conservativeness raises up. J. Budziszewski:

The mistake in all these stages is confusing America with Zion. She is not the inheritor of the covenant, not the receiver of the promises, not the witness to the nations. It may well be that all nations have callings of sorts — specific purposes which God in His providence assigns them. But no nation can presume to take God under its wing. However we may love her, dote upon her, and regret her, the Lord our God can do without the United States.

I am first, and foremost, a member of the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God - and, frankly, this is where the famed split on the right between the social conservatives (read "fundamentalist" Christians) and the political conservatives may be based. Political ideology, and especially partisanship, do not trump theology.

I believe the free market economic system is the fairest, the most productive, and the greatest engine for human liberty ever conceived.

I believe that American defenses must be second to none – conventional and strategic.

I believe in a robust, forward thinking, “America first” foreign policy.

What does this last mean? The use of "America First" as the cover slogan for the pro-Nazi Americans who wished to keep the US out of WWII makes this an unfortunate phrase at best. That aside, what does a foreign policy that puts the United States first mean? What kind of foreign policy has the US ever had that didn't put us first? Is the key phrase here "forward thinking"? Now, foreign policy that is forward thinking would be new.

I believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and that a president should appoint judges to the federal courts who reflect that view.

This would be the first (maybe second) real ideological point I see Rick Moran making. I agree, and I like how one of the commentor's explained this:

The term “strict constructionist” is probably liberal term invented in academia as a dysphemism to make proper interpretation of the Constitution seem like a bad thing.

The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. It has an amendment process so we can add other things that we think it should say. Instead of just making up what we think it says, we should rule that it says what it says. The legislative branches all over the country have the right (and duty) to correct and amend it as needed.

Exactly. It is the impatience -- and laziness -- of folks to do the political work necessary to "win the hearts and minds" of enough people to change the constitutions of the federal and state governments that make them go to the courts in order to get judges to legislate from the bench. This, as Jefferson warned, creates a judicial oligarchy and makes the constitution blank by construction.

I believe in the inviolable rights of private property as the guarantor of American liberty.

I believe in equality of opportunity for all Americans regardless of color, ethnic heritage, or national origin.

I believe America should strive to create the smallest government realistically possible, possessing the lightest touch imaginable on the individual citizen.

This is one of those things I agree with absolutely, and see very few folks giving an ideological depth to. Without a concept like subsidiarity informing this view, it is largely rhetoric:

Since Aristotle two principles have been seen:

1. connaturality: culture should develop in partnership with our design filling the outline our first nature provides; and


2. diminishing spontaneity: as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

These two features imply the risk that though the higher rungs ought to protect and co-operate with the more spontaneous lower rungs - the higher rung's lesser spontaneity means they may not.

This implies a rule, subsidiarity, which was a natural assumption but not put into words until 1931 by Pope Pius XI:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." ("On Reconstruction of the Social Order")

As Pius said, what brought this to the forefront was the industrial revolution, and the danger that between the collectivists on one side, and the individualists on the other, all the "little platoons" between the state and the individual would be destroyed and/or absorbed.

Back to Moran's list:

I believe in a just and moral society with a as clear a sense of right and wrong as is consistent with reality.

I believe that all of these things should be taught in American schools and that an appreciation of these values and qualities should be encouraged.

Someone in the comments asked where exactly this list is published - which is, of course, a great question. I believe in natural moral law so I have some ideas on the matter; but Rick and I do not agree on the existence of God (and a natural set of moral principles arising from that) - which conservatives like Burke and Russell Kirk took as granted. From Kirk (the first of his six canons of conservative thought):

Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs. . . . True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

[Kirk later expanded these six canons into ten principles which are listed below]

And I believe we should have the freedom to say what we think, write what we want, worship however the hell we please, do anything, go anywhere, and enjoy life according to our own lights – as long as we do no harm to anyone’s person or property

Most liberals would agree with this - until we got to the definition of what constituted harm.

Now, I criticized Moran for lack of ideology - as he has criticized current conservatives for a lack of a intellectual foundation for their views. Kirk, however, dismissed ideology for the conservative:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

To cap this piece, I will list Kirk's ten principles as well.

Conservatives

1. believe that there exists an enduring moral order


2. adhere to custom, convention, and continuity.


3. believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.


4. are guided by their principle of prudence.


5. pay attention to the principle of variety.


6. are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.


7. are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.


8. uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.


9. perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.


10. understand that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Read more!

WSJ: "Why the Surge Worked"

The Wall Street Journal has an interview with retired 4-star general Jack Keene - the architect of "The Surge" in Iraq. It is an interesting read.

Keene is asked about why the surge worked, and what the current threats in Iraq still are. These are critical things to understand as whoever wins in November takes control of Iraq policy in January.

In late 2006, after the midterm election debacle for Republicans, pressure rose for a quick if dishonorable exit from Iraq. Gen. Keane met Frederick Kagan, who was putting together a report on an alternative strategy for Iraq at the American Enterprise Institute. On Dec. 11, both men found themselves at the White House to push the plan. Congress, the Joint Chiefs, Iraq commander Gen. George Casey and the Iraq Study Group all wanted a fast drawdown. President Bush ignored their advice. Gen. Petraeus was sent out in February to oversee the new, risky and politically unpopular surge.

Even Gen. Keane didn't expect the new strategy to work so fast. "It's a stunning turnaround, and I think people will study it for years because it's unparalleled in counterinsurgency practice," he says. "All the gains we've achieved against al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency, the Iranians in the south are sustainable" -- a slight pause here -- "if we're smart about it and not let them regroup and get back into it."

Gen. Keane wants to make sure people understand why the surge worked. "I have a theory" about the unexpectedly fast turnaround, he says. "Whether they be Sunni, Shia or Kurd, anyone who was being touched by that war after four years was fed up with it. And I think once a solution was being provided, once they saw the Americans were truly willing to take risks and die to protect their women and children and their way of life, they decided one, to protect the Americans, and two, to turn in the enemies that were around them who were intimidating and terrorizing them; that gave them the courage to do it."

For the future, he noted some items:

1. Gen. Keane still considers a robust American ground force "the secret to success" in Iraq.:

   "It is a myth for people to assert that by pulling away from the Iraqis, by pulling away from the Iraqi political process, that somehow that becomes a catalyst to do things that they would not do because of our presence. That is fundamentally wrong. It is our presence that is helping Iraqis move forward."

2. helping the Sunnis back into the political system.



3. Sectarian tensions remain a worry:

   "It appears that Maliki is using the guise of security to enhance his political base and to diminish his political opponents," says Gen. Keane, citing the Baquba incident. "That is a danger and that is something we should not tolerate."

4. Another potential threat looms from Iran.

   Iran wants a weak Iraqi central government unaligned with America. "We know that they intend to come back on the kinetic side, attack U.S. forces exclusively with less attacks, but more spectacular. I don't believe for a minute they're going to be able to resurge and be successful as long as we stay on top of it, keep our head in the game, maintain our force presence in the south."

This is a discussion (outside of tanning beds in the Alaska Governor's mansion) that folks need to have. The vision for how American policy will evolve in Iraq is critical to the Presidential race - since Commander in Chief is one of, if not the, the President's most important jobs. Indeed, as Keene points out:

"Despite the fact that President Bush did preside over a strategy that was failing for three plus years, and he has been criticized for that," says Gen. Keane, "he also deserves a significant amount of credit because all around him people were advocating a failed strategy, particularly key leaders around him, and he had the wherewithal to make a tough decision that flew certainly in the face of political opposition even in his own party."

Read more!