Romans 8:12-14 -- "If by the Spirit"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Culture wars: How to Look Like a Hypocrite

[Point four of Jared Wilson's criticism of the "culture wars": (Index)]

Jered Wilson: "The 'culture war' is going to hell because . . ."

4. It is often hypocritical. It is the height of weirdness to expect people who don’t know Jesus to act like they do especially when we can’t get our own house in order. So long as large numbers of Christians continue contributing to the divorce statistics, the porn industry, and more acceptable sins like gluttony and gossip and greed, we have zero business telling the world how to act. Judgment begins at the house of God.

1 Peter 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God. And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?

Read more!

Romans 7:21-8:2 -- "Rescued - And Free"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 7:7-25 -- "The Real Problem With Me"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 7:1-6 -- "Free From Law to Live By the Spirit"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 6:15-23 -- "Free - and a Slave"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

The Problem of Evil: Free Will and the Quantity of Evil

Luke at Common Sense Atheism is continuing his series Arguing about Evil with the post "Plantinga’s Free Will Defense". Go read that.

This was started as a comment there, and then got to long-winded to keep as a comment.

Read more!

Romans 6:12-14 "Sin Shall Not Be Your Master"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 5:21-6:14 "A New Identity "

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 6:8-11 "Identity: What Paul and Clark Kent Have to Say"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 6:5-7 "No Longer Slaves to Sin"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Romans 6:1-4 "A New Life"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

Must I Confront "Bad" Christians?

I spend a lot of time actually discussing religion and politics with folks who are neither political or theological conservatives. This is primarily at a "faith and politics" site called Street Prophets. I have been there long enough that I am a part of the community - at least in the sense that "crazy uncle Ernie" is part of your family; or the pit bull barking at you when you walk by is part of your neighborhood (Just kidding - mostly - I have good friends there as well). Maybe you would be happy if they both disappeared, but it would change your world.

One of the drawbacks of it is that I have to deal with a question like

Where were the shocked and outraged evangelical reactions when Falwell and Robertson both asserted that God made (or permitted--a fine distinction) 9/11 to happen, and that it was the fault of gays, liberals, feminists, pagans and so forth?

This question is not unique to me. Muslims who aren't terrorists have to answer it, atheists complain of having to answer for some of their ilk, (and liberals, and conservatives, and Republicans, and Democrats, and . . .) are all expected to have denounced any nutcases in their particular tribe.

The implication is if droves of Evangelicals do not stand up and bash "our leaders" everytime one of them stands on a stage and makes a fool of themselves - then we are responsible for their buffoonery.

In my opinion, I really am only responsible for:

• The Bible - and only because I believe in sola scriptura; and its inspiration and inerrancy
• What I personally draw from and hold as my theology from the Bible and other sources
• My church and the words of my Pastor that I publish and agree to

Let's talk about this:

1. Our leaders -- Amy Sullivan said it well:

   the evangelical community (and even the conservative evangelical community) is very diverse and doesn't have one acknowledged leader.

   She went to give a list - but it showed how impossible making a list is. The folks she mentioned are on as broad a theological and political spectrum as can be imagined.
   
   My leaders have been my pastors - the teachers that work through scripture with me.



2. Handling those leaders mistakes -- Going to scripture, as I usually will, I can see that if I am going to correct a fellow follower of Christ that I have to:
   
   
   • Be humble and do not judge:

     Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 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.

     Romans 2:1 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. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. 3 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? 4 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?

   • Remember who their boss is:

     Exhortation to Mutual Forbearance
     Romans 14:1 Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

   • Do it in love:

     1 John 2:9 The one who says he is in the light but still hates his fellow Christian is still in the darkness. 10 The one who loves his fellow Christian resides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But the one who hates his fellow Christian is in the darkness, walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

     1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

   • Do it to lift them up:

     Ephesians 4:29 You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.

   • and, do it in private, in person, and with as few people involved as possible:

     Restoring Christian Relationships
     Matthew 18: 15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.

That should make it clear how difficult it is for followers of Christ to satisfy their non-Christian critics when it comes to public denunciations of folks within our ranks who sin.

One side issue: we are often accused of saying someone is "not a Christian" when they act badly. If I have given that impression, I wish to go on record (or point to C.S. Lewis's record) with how I view it:

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word . . .

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

Now, this is a very Biblical examination of my responsibilities to my fellow follower of Christ when I think he has done wrong. However, from my experience, the general principles here are easily expanded outside of Christianity, and indeed outside of religion, to relations between folks in general.

Y'all can chat about that too if you wish

Read more!

Romans 3:21-25a "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

[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:

(NET) Romans 3:21 But now²⁶ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)²⁷ has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ²⁸ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified²⁹ freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ . . .

Notes:

²⁶ tn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

²⁷ tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

²⁸ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

²⁹ tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

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

My Comments: A quick review of the book up to now might be helpful:

• 1:1-15 -- Introduction
• 1:16-17 -- the theme of the entire book.

  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. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

• 1:18 - 3:20 -- The first sharp turn in Romans. Paul goes in to a long explanation of why everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin" and subject to God's wrath. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the folks commenting on this section has gone as far as to suggest that Paul did not write a great deal of this section because it is such a sharp departure from the previous verses - and the ones we will now move into.

As Chris Thatcher (this weeks speaker) points out this passage, starting with "But now . . .", marks a another sharp turn, or hinge, in the book of Romans. Indeed, he states (and I agree) that if Romans had ended with 3;19 that this would be a supremely depressing letter that would not be in the Christian canon, and if it was would mark Christianity as one of the most negative, depressing religions on the planet.

Indeed, one of those commenting on the last section of Romans pointed out:

Other people like me let our conscience eat us alive from the inside out because when we read scripture like this that remind us how flawed we are already convinced. So to hear it from a source of authority simply consumes us.

And we don't get back up.

Some people will thrive on this and use the other chapters in the Bible to build themselves back up and make better people of themselves but with a newly polished mirror.

Other people, like me, like my father, listen to the reminders of how flawed we are, stare into that mirror long enough - and then out of guilt, frustration and desperation we smash our face right into the glass and the shards do the rest.

This is true of both followers of Christ and non-followers of Christ - and it comes partially, IMO, because we do not do a good enough job showing how God loves us despite our flaws. I will offer my bedrock set of verses from later in Romans that I use for this purpose

Romans 7:15-25 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

We all, Christian or not, have a body of "laws" - a morality - that we desire to follow. And, I am convinced, we are convicted by that body of laws - none of us live up to our own expectations. Paul sees this dichotomy in himself: as much as he loves God and wants to do right he still does wrong. Paul attributes this to our sin nature (the law of sin in our members) that actually wars with our own conscience and morality. It is not Paul who does wrong, but that law of sin residing with him in his body.

This is what Paul meant by us living "under sin" in the last section of Romans 3. Now the good news: just as, right after the Romans 7 passage quoted above, Romans 8 began

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.

now Romans 3:21 continues

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Jesus is the rope thrown by God to drowning humans (or, to keep myself PC at Street Prophets - one of those ropes :-)). As Chris Thatcher said it, at the train wreck Paul outlines in the previous section - where every car and every passenger is involved - God shows up in the person of Jesus. Moreover, God shows up apart from any law or set of rules humans can follow - Jews and gentiles are equal.

Paul begins his primary view that the Mosaic law (or, IMO, any set of ethics and morality) does not make us righteous or even give us something to base moral superiority on; but actually should engender humility and make us realize that we are incapable of righteousness - these rules should teach us that we are incapable of following our own moral codes.

Not that Paul is talking about political entities here, but I think there is some application to political life as well. Folks, and countries, have underlying political ideologies along with moral ideas and rules in which they believe. These ideologies should also not engender pride or self-righteousness - but humiility - because people and countries do not follow their political ideals any better than folks follow their morals codes and laws.

From the notesheet: Question for individuals or groups --

1. Describe your heart’s response to God’s revelation, rescue, and provision in Jesus Christ.
2. Looking ahead in Romans, what are the implications for you if you now have God’s righteousness by faith in Christ and your sin is atoned for?
3. If someone asked, how would you explain the gospel based on what we have covered in Romans so far?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

Read more!

Romans 3:9-20:"The Biggest Problem in the World "

[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 3:9 What then? Are we better off? Certainly not, for we have already charged that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin, 10 just as it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one, 11 there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one who shows kindness, not even one.”¹⁵ 13 “Their throats are open graves,¹⁶ they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.”¹⁷ 14 “Their mouths are¹⁸ full of cursing and bitterness.”¹⁹ 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 ruin and misery are in their paths, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.”²⁰ 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”²¹ 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under²² the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no one is declared righteous before him²³ by the works of the law,²⁴ for through the law comes²⁵ the knowledge of sin.

Notes:

¹⁵ sn Verses 10–12 are a quotation from Ps 14:1–3.
¹⁶ tn Grk “their throat is an opened grave.”
¹⁷ sn A quotation from Pss 5:9; 140:3.

¹⁸ tn Grk “whose mouth is.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

¹⁹ sn A quotation from Ps 10:7.
²⁰ sn Rom 3:15–17 is a quotation from Isa 59:7–8.
²¹ sn A quotation from Ps 36:1.
²² tn Grk “in,” “in connection with.”
²³ sn An allusion to Ps 143:2.

²⁴ tn Grk “because by the works of the law no flesh is justified before him.” Some recent scholars have understood the phrase ἒργα νόμου (erga nomou, “works of the law”) to refer not to obedience to the Mosaic law generally, but specifically to portions of the law that pertain to things like circumcision and dietary laws which set the Jewish people apart from the other nations (e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Romans [WBC], 1:155). Other interpreters, like C. E. B. Cranfield (“‘The Works of the Law’ in the Epistle to the Romans,” JSNT 43 [1991]: 89-101) reject this narrow interpretation for a number of reasons, among which the most important are: (1) The second half of v. 20, “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin,” is hard to explain if the phrase “works of the law” is understood in a restricted sense; (2) the plural phrase “works of the law” would have to be understood in a different sense from the singular phrase “the work of the law” in 2:15; (3) similar phrases involving the law in Romans (2:13, 14; 2:25, 26, 27; 7:25; 8:4; and 13:8) which are naturally related to the phrase “works of the law” cannot be taken to refer to circumcision (in fact, in 2:25 circumcision is explicitly contrasted with keeping the law). Those interpreters who reject the “narrow” interpretation of “works of the law” understand the phrase to refer to obedience to the Mosaic law in general.

²⁵ tn Grk “is.”

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

My comments: Romans is the most complete presentation of the Gospel in the New Testament, and Paul has started out to show that God wishes everyone to be saved - but first has to show that everyone needs saving. So, the first three chapters have systematically shown that everyone is lost. This is really the last week of Paul presenting the problem, before launching into God's solution to the problem.

This solution is what most people think of as "the Gospel" - but it all really is the Good News. That Good News is not only that we need saving, but that there is a plan to save us.

In the first three chapters, Paul does not prove that everyone is a sinner - he makes that accusation or charge. It is the indictment of a prosecutor, and not the verdict of a jury or judge. However, Paul is not accusing us of doing bad things or failing to do good things - he is saying that we are "under sin". He views it as a dark force, or a disease, that everyone is enslaved and/or controlled by. It is this force that makes us commit acts - sins - that most people want to think about when you talk about sin. So, his central charge is that

all people are enslaved to sin.

To support this charge, Carl Palmer points out that Paul uses a rabbinical method called "stringing pearls" - he reaches back into scripture and finds 8 verses to support his view.

• All people are condemned by their character (vvs 10-12):
  • Ecclesiastes 7:20
  • Psalm 14:1
  • Psalm 14:2; 53:2
  • Psalm 14:3; 53:3
• All people are condemned by their conduct (vvs 13-17):
  • Psalm 5:8; 140:3
  • Psalm 10:7
  • Isaiah 59:7-8
• The root cause is "no fear of God": Psalm 36:1
• The conclusion (vss 19-20):
  • The law silences every mouth
  • The world makes the whole world accountable to God
  • The law makes no one righteous in His sight
  • The law brings consciousness of sin

Next: 3:21-25a -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

Read more!

Romans 3:1-8:"Faithlessness and Faithfulness"

[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 3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Actually, there are many advantages.¹ First of all,² the Jews³ were entrusted with the oracles of God.⁴ 3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being⁵ shown up as a liar,⁶ just as it is written: “so that you will be justified⁷ in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”⁸ 5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates⁹ the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he?¹⁰ (I am speaking in human terms.)¹¹ 6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances¹² his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil so that good may come of it”? – as some who slander us allege that we say.¹³ (Their¹⁴ condemnation is deserved!)

Notes:

¹ tn Grk “much in every way.”

² tc ‡ Most witnesses (א A D2 33 M) have γάρ (gar) after μέν (men), though some significant Alexandrian and Western witnesses lack the conjunction (B D* G Ψ 81 365 1506 2464* pc latt). A few mss have γάρ, but not μέν (6 1739 1881). γάρ was frequently added by scribes as a clarifying conjunction, making it suspect here. NA27 has the γάρ in brackets, indicating doubt as to its authenticity.

tn Grk “first indeed that.”

³ tn Grk “they were.”

⁴ tn The referent of λόγια (logia, “oracles”) has been variously understood: (1) BDAG 598 s.v. λόγιον takes the term to refer here to “God’s promises to the Jews”; (2) some have taken this to refer more narrowly to the national promises of messianic salvation given to Israel (so S. L. Johnson, Jr., “Studies in Romans: Part VII: The Jews and the Oracles of God,” BSac 130 [1973]: 245); (3) perhaps the most widespread interpretation sees the term as referring to the entire OT generally.

⁵ tn Grk “every man”; but ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is used in a generic sense here to stress humanity rather than masculinity.

⁶ tn Grk “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” The words “proven” and “shown up” are supplied in the translation to clarify the meaning.

⁷ tn Grk “might be justified,” a subjunctive verb, but in this type of clause it carries the same sense as the future indicative verb in the latter part. “Will” is more idiomatic in contemporary English.

⁸ tn Or “prevail when you judge.” A quotation from Ps 51:4.

⁹ tn Or “shows clearly.”

¹⁰ tn Grk “That God is not unjust to inflict wrath, is he?”

¹¹ sn The same expression occurs in Gal 3:15, and similar phrases in Rom 6:19 and 1 Cor 9:8.

¹² tn Grk “abounded unto.”

¹³ tn Grk “(as we are slandered and some affirm that we say…).”

¹⁴ tn Grk “whose.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, this relative clause was rendered as a new sentence in the translation.

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

From the Note Sheet: Going deeper in the word . . .

1. Do we sometimes doubt how God could be perfectly fair and “just” in judging our sin and failure? What should we do?
2. How does the cross of Jesus include both the “holy righteousness” of God to “judge” sin—and also the “faithful righteousness” of God to “save” sinners?
3. Do you regard yourself as someone to whom God has “entrusted” with “the very words of God”? If so, what does that mean to you?
4. Is it possible that we who follow Jesus could fail to live “faithfully” as “God’s messenger people”—to this generation?
5. How can we grow in trusting God—when we do not understand Him and His ways?
   

My Comments: Carl organized this message around 4 questions that a Jew might ask in response to the Gospel message, and Paul's answers in the passage:

1. If belonging to God’s “chosen people” and having the sign of His covenant (circumcision) do not save from God’s wrath . . . Is there any advantage to being a Jew? Paul really doesn't answer this question until Romans 9:

4 . . . To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.

Carl points out that God has given the Jews tremendous blessings. They were given the Law and the prophets so that they could have three great priviledges:

• know reality…truth… relationship with God. (Encounter God)
• experience the best way to live. (Embody God)
• become “light” to the nations. (Extend God to others)

These three priviledges should be familiar to Christians now - these are what God desires for us today where we are. Indeed, this is what God has desired for His people throughout the ages.

2. But, if some of the Jews did not truly believe God, does that mean God has been unfaithful… or will forget His promises? This is where Carl introduces the title of the message - "Faithlessness and Faithfulness". Paul says that yes, people have been faithless to God - but God keeps His promises. The quantity of human compromise in the world does not affect God's faithfulness at all. Everyone could be unfaithful in the world - and God would still be faithful

3. If the “evil” of our sin has brought the “good” of the Gospel — why does God condemn us? If God’s righteousness is seen more clearly because of our unrighteousness — is God unjust to bring His wrath on us? After all, if - as you say Paul - everything up to know has proved that we all - Gentile and Jew, with or without the Law - are sinners, and this has brought the Good of Christ as part of the Sovereign plan of God - haven't we helped bring the Good of Christ? This is very close to fitting in with the whole "God created evil" logic of folks who say that we are not responsible, or God is not Good, because of the existence of evil. Therefore, God has no grounds to judge humans because he brought the evil on Himself. Paul's answer is, of course, that we are responsible, that God is not evil, and that therefore He has the position to judge us. [See this series]. Paul covers this topic more in Chapter 9 as well.

4. If my sin (“falsehood”) reveals God’s truthfulness and increases His glory — why would God condemn me as a sinner? Of course, very similiar to question #3 - except that is is about falsehood and truthfulness instead righteousness and unrighteousness.

Carl mentioned in an earlier message that Romans 1-3 are like the black cloth that jewelers use as a backdrop when they display diamonds. The dark background elevates the glory of the stone. Here the question is: if my dark background elevates the Glory of God and helps His purposes - why take it out on the "poor dark cloth"? Carl says, rightly, that his is ludicrous, stupid, [pick your adjective]. He says he has 3 sons, and it would be like him saying that he loves it when his sons do wrong, because it makes him (Carl) look good. No father thinks like that.

It also is connected to the idea that we are somehow puppets - doing right and wrong at God's Will; and therefore without blame when we do wrong because it is just part of God's overall plan. Indeed, Paul takes it to the extreme, and reports on folks who misread him as saying we should actually sin more so that God's Glory can increase. This nonsense will be covered in Chapter 6

All of the themes of the first three chapters are going to be explored in greater detail later in the letter. Carl compares it to the overture of a symphony - where the themes of the overall work are touched on and expanded on later.

Next: 3:9-20 -- "The Biggest Problem in the World"

Read more!

Romans 2:6-16:"God's Impartial Judgment"

[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:

Read more!

Original Sin?

[Crossposted to Street Prophets]

This is another of those long comments I made on another blog. The conversation started this way:

Seriously, taking the Bible literally can lead to people tying themselves into knots. Take original sin. God said what He said in Genesis, but by the time of the 10 commandments in Exodus, His wrath was limited unto the 3rd or 4th generation. By Ezekial 18, every man's sin is his own and the sins of the fathers are not visited on the sons. So which version is right?

I gave an answer that included discussion of progressive revelation - and that I did not think these areas were that contradictory. The chat continued with this comment:

Then Augustine's ideas on original sin are no longer in play? And there's no longer the original need for salvation?

Last I looked all Christianity was based on the idea of salvation starting with the original sin; I'm totally confused at this point.

Frankly, I really haven't read what Augustine said about original sin - but folks who talk about it act like it is some kind of infection passed on by our genes at birth - Augustine apparently thought by the lust associated with sex. However, Augustine's views on original gave over, within the Catholic Church and within a century, to Aquinas' view:

He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions.

This makes sense to me - our legacy from the garden is not some positive infection - it is a lack of something we should have. (This falls in with my view that evil is also a lack of good rather than a force in and of itself.) This, in my view, is why God gave Israel Mosaic Law - to serve as a substitute for those lost supernatural gifts/priviledges.

That the views of the Catholic Church are far closer to Aquinas than Augustine can be seen in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. From Wikipedia:

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

For me, the definition of sin is anything that turns us away from God - anything. We are supposed to love God with ALL of ourselves - anything that gets in the way of that is sin. The original sin was Adam and Eve disobeying God's command not to eat some fruit from a tree - a fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil.

One pastor I heard said this about the two trees in Eden:

• the tree of life (חיּים); and
• the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (רע- ra): the root of ra is רעע- raa - which can mean to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces)

He pointed out that the first thing Adam and Eve did once they ate from the tree (after feeling shame because they were naked) was to make a covering for themselves - not for the other person: they became self-focused. He presented this as the first religious act - realizing our shame before God and others and seeking to cover and hide ourselves. For me (he didn't say this explicitly), I can see that most of the evil in the world comes from humanity breaking itself into smaller pieces - separating themselves from each other and God.

So, our sin is that we choose our own desires over God's will for us - who we are to give ALL to; and over the needs of other humans - who we are to love as we love ourselves. We know this as well - universally. Our consciences convict us; and, in our shame, we seek to hide our true selves behind masks and fig leaves - we break ourselves off from the community with God and each other we were created for. When our consciences convict us, we should:

• feel remorse and flee from wrong;
• confess what one has done;
• atone - pay the debt;
• reconcile - restore the bonds that have been broken; and
• become justified - get back in the right.

However, as Paul said in Romans, because we suppress the truth apparent within ourselves and in nature and choose other than God - we actually, as J. Budziszewski said:

• do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
• compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
• punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
• simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
• seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

This is the train wreck that is our universal relationship with God and each other. This is the ongoing sin that has arisen from Adam actually, or metaphorically, choosing to go his own way in the Garden - and we all share in this sin. We do all carry the stain of Adam's sin.

Not because Adam did it; but because we - by our nature that we share with Adam - choose universally to do the same; and God "gives us over to our nature" and lets us choose it. We choose it because, as Satan tempted in the Garden, we want "to be as Gods".

This is the reason Christ came. By being the "second Adam" and living through life without sin - without choosing poorly, we have recieved through the Holy Spirit, those supernatural gifts from God that enables us, as Aquinas said:

to keep our inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to our supernatural end

With this supernatural gift/priviledge as a guide, we are no longer bound to Mosaic Law. That is if we listen and then choose to follow.

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:

Read more!

The Problem of Evil:V. Does There Have to be so Much Evil?

I am starting the fifth post in a series on the apologetics surrounding whether or not God's existence, or at least His existence as a good God, can be disproven because of the existence of evil. I have been following Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks treatment of the issue in When Skeptics Ask

This has not been a series about:

• what is, or isn't, evil;
• what we as humans in general (or Christians in particular) should, or shouldn't, do about evil; or even
• what God plans to do about evil

even though I have grazed some of those issues. It has just been about whether God is proven not to be all-knowing, all-loving, and/or all-powerful because evil exists.

Up to this point, the series (other than positing the existence of a God) has been pretty distant from an exposition of Christianity per se -- and pretty distant from anything remotely resembling evangelism. This one may cross that line somewhat -- and for those following the series (particularly at Street Prophets) who would like to not cross that line feel free to skip this post. In fact, I almost didn't write it at all.

One of those arguments about God not being all-good is from the existence of hell in Christian theology. Geisler:

The extent of evil poses a problem. Surely there doesn't have to be this much evil to fulfill God's purposes. Couldn't there have been one less rape, one less drunk driver? That wouid have made the world better. And, of course, that "one-less" theory can be extended until there is no evil at all. This can even be taken to the extreme case: What about hell? Wouldn't it be better to have one less person in hell? Since both of these questions have the same answer, lets deal with the extreme case.

1. The greatest good is to save all men.
2. Even one person in hell would be less than the greatest good.
3. Therefore, God cannot send anyone to hell.

To answer this objection, we go back to the subject of free will. It is true that God desires all men to be saved, but that means that they have to choose to love Him and believe in Him. Now, God can't force anyone to love Him. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. Love must be free: it is a free choice. So in spite of God's desire, some men do not choose to love Him. All who go to hell do so because of their free choice. They may not want to go to hell (who would?), but they do will it. They make the decision to reject God, even though they don't desire punishment. People don't go to hell because God sends them; they choose it and God respects their freedom.

"There are two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in hell, chose it." -- C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

Now if that is how eternal destiny is decided, then it is not one person in hell that is evil; it is one more than is really necessary (i.e., one who did choose God but was sent to hell anyway). Granted, a world in which some men go to hell is not the best of all conceivable worlds, but it may be the best of all achievable worlds if free will is to be maintained [my emphasis]. Likewise, the world might be made better by one less crime, but it must be left to the would-be criminal to make that choice.

Social/political: Society, parents, etc. also cannot force folks not to do evil. As Geisler points out, it really is the person doing the evils decision. Certainly, there are things society can, and cannot, do in order to limit the instances of evil folks choose to do - but it still comes down to the choices folks make everyday.

Next question: Does God actively encourage good and constrain evil?
Series Link

Read more!