ROMANS 8-10
VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the
videos that are not in the post- here are a few]
.Council of Trent- what did the
Church say?
.Do we get the final say- at the Judgment?
.What are the Catholic virtues-
did Paul teach them?
.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and
Wesley.
.Infusion or Imputation? How bout
both!
At the bottom I added some quotes
from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching
of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.
. REMINDER- This is a commentary
I wrote years ago- the videos are new.
.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;
1-
Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose
him?
2-
When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he
only speaking about resurrection?
3-
Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?
4-
Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?
(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having
proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who
‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according
to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’.
Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared
righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who
have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in
chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore
[because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’!
This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology,
part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the
Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council
of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things
that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They
did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more
‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down
strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the
schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus
‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t
declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially].
The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a
person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The
Catholic view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The
same way James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example
from Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view
is focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul
agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually
living the changed life] have no condemnation’.
(840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach
the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those
who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We
will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society
spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right.
The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of
punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime
punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some
debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go
ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they
have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if
the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he
that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most
commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your
mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The
discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different
than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your
actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in
verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify
the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if
you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your
physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit,
which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do
see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23]
so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training
his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the
resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the
work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of
regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe
[which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign
act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the
future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down
payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the
purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as
‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been
‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily
resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of
England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of
England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the
resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league.
He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s
resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief
[and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little
surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul.
Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist
groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind
of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by
Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his
understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little
strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother
Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new
earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now,
which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present
‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the
Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the
Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on
earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get
straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection,
and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life
to glorify him]. These are both great truths!
(841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are
familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction
in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context
‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting
to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is
saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is
right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit
and a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too
much here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as
proof, a result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of
being born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in
chapter 4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
thou mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from
the Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the
reality of ‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba,
father’. ‘We are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this
has been a popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say
‘God owns the cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are
heirs ‘give me some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of
our identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too
shall share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the
resurrection- we shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of
an eye. This mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern
American Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens,
Paul held to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled
him to go thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted
the suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.
(843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the
sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the
difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did
not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material
[monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ - real]. Paul teaches
that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a
‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself
longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the
redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also
says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be
pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even
as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well
as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the
resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral
term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you
read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when
coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will
be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some
writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’
thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply
changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing]
that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to
look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think
‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great
promise at the other end!
(845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying
‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods
Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we
cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession
time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try
and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’
[which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending
upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to
be said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who
are ‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What
does it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many
excuses for trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer?
Some taught it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things
that happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the
things would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for
the book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book.
The point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can
pick apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the
meaning of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can
figure him out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to
you right now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’.
What about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to
them that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love
God’.
(846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first
became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually
read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I
have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so
forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach
predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and
all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I
began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic
Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper
Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early
understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited
in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings
and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men
of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a
matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over
this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the
doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually
I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and is]
a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that most
of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those
who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just
like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny
this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic
predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing
and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine
of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’
by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those
who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the
doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the
issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea
of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice
to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The
texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above
does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into
the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us
to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read
this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I
believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of
time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also
predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn
among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated
he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to
me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those
who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense]
glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it
already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the
doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe
it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.
(847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall
we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and
has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for
us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the
‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can
‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the
purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’
about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view
us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation
in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can
fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this
context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion
really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free
from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever
since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true
scriptures by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that
nothing can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or
famine or persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him
who loved us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want
you to see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American
church we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his
kids? Would a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really
partaking of the New Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that
many well meaning ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and
sincere hearts, I also have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It
basically tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he
really loved you would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are
saying ‘tribulation and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have
been separated from Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset
out of the water. He says it is thru these things that we are more than
conquerors. It is the ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say
‘you have no power over me, my father has permitted these things to take place.
I am here to lay my life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are
suffering are opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of
society and say ‘nay, we are more than conqueror's thru him that loved us’. The
early church set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for
the cause, refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were
‘more than conquerors’.
ROMANS 9-
.PAUL- SPURGEON- AND DAVE HUNT-
DID THEY BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION?
.HOW DOES PAUL DEFEND AGAINST THE
SEEMING ‘UNFAIRNESS’ OF IT?
.WHAT DID THAT RUSSIAN ATHIEST
SAY?
(848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns
to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to
the covenants that God made with Israel ’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says
that natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He was
[is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods
interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel, but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”.
Understand something here, Paul is not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to
Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which
teaches British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and
saying ‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the
Law, the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the
seed’ [children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in
Galatians 3 and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of
Gods Spirit [Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he
is the father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are
building upon Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has
a little more ‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am
not saying it is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of
Acts you see Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul
fully realizes that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at
Rome. Rome is the capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to
understand the role and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being
seen by some Jewish believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make
it clear that he was not trying to start some type of movement that rejected
natural Israel. At the same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according
to the flesh’ to receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a
theological treatise saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together
as one new man in Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the
children of the flesh ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of
the promise are counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both
Jews and Gentiles [which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!]
can partake of this free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will
believe’.
(849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into
predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the
Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they
were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who
hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice
are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of
any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now,
this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to
me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he
preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people
accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is
putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic
position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods
foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus
into their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God
chose Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would
this be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not
use this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question
God? Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like
this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the
Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the
west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took
on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out
of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic
understanding of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that
made it sound like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make
strong statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic
Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is
called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited
atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not
sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using
this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious
statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some
refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this
point. The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major
Christian figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the
obvious difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative
theology’ himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his
mercy and wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the
seeming ‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never
tries to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew
the way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who
would choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in
the minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.
(851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes
Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He
uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a
remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset
of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a
remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is
a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall
enjoy the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some
versions leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the
nations [that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here.
Paul is saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t
utterly wipe them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’,
being ‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away
ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who
have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel . So I want you to grasp the
biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually
speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece.
Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be
saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his
wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the
earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.
(853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall
we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of
righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.
Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’
argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were
always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain
that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by
law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even
looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was
the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are
separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of
Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I
condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith.
Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and
also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those
who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t
know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is
a good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and
speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really
aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time
to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what
are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this
false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What
is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi
said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up
against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types
of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall
on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it
will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the
next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint
going away’.
ROMANS 10 [On the video I give a
broad overview of the doctrine ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I cover many
verses not in the post].
.DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ‘A SINNERS
PRAYER”?
.DOES THIS CHAPTER SAY ‘THOSE WHO
CALLED/ASKED- DID NOT GET IT?
.IS THEIR A ‘RIGHTEOUS MAN’S
PRAYER’ THAT BRINGS SALVATION?
. PLEASE- LETS STOP DIVIDING OVER
SMALL STUFF-
(854)ROMANS 10: 1-13 Many years
ago I referenced all the back up scriptures for this chapter [and book!]. The
study was intense because I saw a fundamental ‘fault line’ that ran thru many
in the Evangelical church [the revivalist tradition]. The ‘fault line’ was reading
this chapter as in if it were saying ‘ask Jesus into your heart, or you won’t
be saved’. Now, I have no problem with those who trace their conversion to an
experience like this. But I want to give you my understanding of this chapter,
based on the exhaustive study I did years ago. Also, I will probably quote some
verses and you will have to find them later [I forget where they all are]. Paul
begins with his desire for ‘all Israel
to be saved’. I taught in chapter one how come the gospel is the power of God
unto salvation. Because all who believe ‘become righteous’. After 9 chapters of
Romans, we have seen that when Paul refers to ‘justification by faith’ this is
synonymous with ‘believing with the heart unto righteousness’. Here Paul’s
desire is for Israel
to experience ‘all facets of salvation’ [present and future] to ‘be saved’.
Now, he will say ‘Christ is the end of the law to all who believe’ Israel did not
attain unto ‘righteousness’ because they sought after it by trying to keep the
law. But it comes only by faith. Then Paul quotes a kind of obscure verse from
Deuteronomy saying ‘Moses says the righteousness which is by faith’ [note- this
whole description that follows is describing ‘the righteousness that comes by
faith’] and says ‘the word is near thee, in thy mouth and heart’. Paul then
says ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved, with the heart a man believes
and becomes righteous [which according to Paul means ‘justified’] and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation’. In this text, Paul once again is
‘dividing’ the common understanding of ‘salvation’ meaning ‘getting initially
saved’- which is ‘believing and being justified’. And simply saying ‘believers
will inevitably call and be saved’ [in a generic sense]. Why would he do this?
In the context of his argument, he is simply showing the ‘righteousness which
is from the law’ [the man under the law is described as ‘doing something’
continuing under the load and strain of law] versus the ‘righteousness which is
by faith’ [described as a person who believes and speaks, as opposed to ‘does
stuff’]. It is not inconsistent for Paul to use the term ‘confessing and being
saved’ as speaking of something different than meaning ‘accepting Christ into
your heart’. Paul is simply giving a description of those who believe ‘all who
believe will call’. And yes, they will and do experience ‘salvation’. It’s just
in this example Paul is not saying ‘they are saved initially upon confession,
calling’. At least not ‘saved’ in the sense of ‘getting justified by faith’.
Why? Because the rest of the chapter doesn’t make a whole lotta sense if he
were saying this. ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed’? He
already showed us that ‘believers are justified’. The very argument Paul makes
distinguishes between ‘believing unto righteousness, and calling unto
salvation’. You can see it like this, there is a verse I stumbled across years
ago. It is in one of the prophets [Old Testament] and it says ‘Gods wrath will
come upon all them WHO HAVE NOT CALLED UPON HIM’. In this context Paul can be
saying ‘whoever calls upon God will never enter judgment/wrath’ [a description
of a particular lifestyle, remember Paul said Gods Spirit makes us cry ‘Abba
Father’] in this light Paul can be saying ‘all who call [both Jew and Gentile-
simply making an argument for inclusion. God accepts ‘all who call’] will not
come under future [or present!] wrath’. This would be in keeping with Peters
scathing sermon in Act’s where he quotes the Prophet Joel and says ‘whosoever
calls upon the Lord shall be saved’. If you go back and read Joel you will see
that in context he is saying ‘at the future time of God’s revealed judgment,
those who cry for deliverance will be spared’. Peter quotes it in this context
as well. He shows Gods future time of judgment and ends with ‘all who call will
be saved’. How do we know that Peter was not quoting Joel for some type of
‘sinner’s prayer’ thing? Because after the Jews say ‘what should we do’? He
doesn’t lead them in a sinners Prayer! I don’t want to be picky, I simply want
you to see context. Paul has already established multiple times thru out this
letter how righteousness comes to those who believe. One of the descriptions of
‘those who believe’ are they ‘call upon God’. They even call upon God ‘to save
them’. In this chapter the reason Paul uses ‘whosoever calls upon the lord will
be saved’ is to simply show God will deliver both Jews and Gentiles. His
promise of salvation is ‘to all’. When he uses ‘believing and being made
righteous’ along with ‘calling and being saved’ he obviously can not be
speaking about the same thing! He even states it this way in his argument. ‘How
can they call unless they already believe’? He was simply giving a description
of ‘those who believe’. This ‘calling for salvation’ that ‘all who believe’
partake of can speak both of a ‘present tense’ being saved, that is from any
and all types of bad things, and a ‘future tense’ deliverance from wrath. Even
when Paul quoted David in Roman’s 4, he is ‘describing the blessedness of the
man unto whom God will not impute sin’ [Psalms 32] if you go back and read that
psalm David says ‘for this shall EVERY ONE THAT IS GODLY PRAY UNTO THEE’. David
uses this in the context of his confession of his sin. So the ‘everyone that is
Godly’ describes ‘the righteous’ and they WILL CALL! Also in 2nd
Corinthians Paul quotes Isaiah ‘now is the acceptable time, now is the day of
salvation’ in the context of ‘God heard you and saved you’. Why would Paul use
this in 2nd Corinthians? They need not be told ‘pray and get saved’. In context
he used it to encourage them to return back into full communion and fellowship
after their restoration and reproof he gave them in the first letter. He is
saying ‘I rebuked you guys harshly, you repented and asked for forgiveness. God
‘heard you’ in his acceptable time, now get over it and ‘be restored’.
Salvation to them came by ‘calling’ but it was not describing an initial
conversion experience. Well, I didn’t realize I would go so long, but this is a
good example of having a ‘holistic view’ of scripture. You try and take all the
quotes the writers are using, put them in context of the broad themes of
scripture. Add that to the immediate context of the letter [Romans] and then
come to a deeper understanding of truth. I am not against those who see this
chapter thru an evangelistic lens, I just think the way I taught it is more
faithful to the text. [NOTE- Thru out this site I have taught the doctrine of
‘the salvation of the righteous’. I mentioned it earlier in Romans and have
spoken on it before. If you can find these entries they will add some insight
to this chapter. NOTE- verse 20 actually has Paul quoting Isaiah ‘I was found
by them who did not ask for me’. This would sure seem strange to say in the
same chapter that taught a concept of ‘all who ask for me will enter the
kingdom’. It is quite possible to ask and pray and confess everything ‘just
right’ and still not find him. And according to this verse, the ones who did
‘find him’ [Gentiles] did not ask! After years of coming to the above
understanding I read a church council [Council of Orange?] and I was surprised
to see how they actually dealt with the issue of believing versus ‘calling upon
God’. They quoted some of these texts to show that before a person could call
upon the Lord, he first needed faith. They used this example to show Gods
sovereignty in salvation. I though it interesting that they came to the very
same conclusions that I did. They even used the same examples! This shows you
how the corporate mind of the church is manifestly expressed thru out the ages.
I think the council was in the 8th or 9th century?
(855)ROMANS 10:14-21 [Just a note
for the previous entry. In the conversions recorded in scripture [Acts] do you
know how many times there is a reference to ‘calling upon the Lord’ during the
conversion? Surprisingly one time. The conversion of Saul [Paul]! During one of
the ‘re-tellings’ of his own story he says ‘I was told to arise, and be
baptized. Washing away my sins while calling upon the Lord’. Wow, could we have
arguments over this one! Do you identify the ‘washing away of sins’ with
baptism or the ‘prayer’? I actually previously taught [somewhere on this long
blog!] how in the 1st century Jewish mindset ‘washing from
uncleanness’ and water were related. I taught it in a way that did not teach
‘baptismal regeneration’ but more along the lines of ‘discipleship’ you might
find the entry under ‘my statement of faith’. The point I want to make here is
Paul spent 3 days after the Lord appeared to him before he actually got
baptized and made an open confession of faith. Paul’s reputation was so bad [he
killed Christians!] that his conversion and confession needed to have all the
weight possible. Others needed to know that he now ‘confessed Christ’. Most
commentators will look to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus road as his
conversion. The point I want to make is in the book of Acts, the main ‘altar
call’ was actually baptism. This was the normal means to identify with the
believing community. We also see the fact that once people believed, they then
were baptized. The same distinction can be made with ‘confessing’. Neither can
take place until one believes. I would assume that Paul said something like
this at his baptism ‘O Jesus, please forgive me for what I have done. I killed
your people and have committed a terrible crime’. There obviously were some
serious things he needed to confess! But the overall view of conversion in Acts
does not show a ‘sinner’s prayer’ type conversion.] Paul indicts Israel ‘The
word did come to you, you didn’t believe’. He also quotes Moses ‘God said he
would provoke you to jealousy by a nation who were “no people”’. We are
beginning a portion of Romans where Paul will try and explain the dynamic of
Gods purpose for Israel, and his ‘use’ of the Gentile nations to ‘make them
jealous’. When we studied the parables we saw this dynamic at work. Israel was
offended that God [Messiah] was offering equal access to the promises of Israel thru
Jesus. Israel
was jealous of this free grace. Paul shows them that Moses prophesied that this
day would come. You also see this in Stephens sermon in Acts chapter 7 ‘Moses
said the Lord would raise up a prophet like me [Jesus!]’ and then Stephen shows
how Israel
also did not recognize that Moses was the intended deliverer of the people. So
likewise 1st century Israel
also did not recognize their Messiah [the first time around!]. God’s acceptance
of the Gentiles was difficult for Israel to embrace. It took a divine
vision for Peter, and he still ‘fell back’ into a caste system mentality. God
is not finished with these dealings [Paul will say in the next few chapters]
and he will make every effort to show both Jews and Gentiles that they are both
important pieces to this ‘divine puzzle’. He will even warn the Gentiles ‘don’t
get proud, if God cut off the true branches to graft you in, watch out! He
might do the same with you.’ Paul is striving for both Jew and Gentile to live
in harmony as much as possible, he did not want to come off as a defender of
the Gentiles only. He was ‘defending the gospel’.
(857)ROMANS- Let me overview a
little. This entry goes along with the last one [#856- those of you reading
this straight from the Romans study will need to find it under one of the
‘teaching’ sections]. Paul deals with the issue of ‘being provoked by/to
jealousy’. Many times believers remain divided because of pride and jealousy.
We often do not want to accept the fact that God actually is working thru other
camps, groups of Christians who are ‘not like us’. It challenges our very
identity at times! We feel like ‘well, my whole experience with God has been
one of coming out of [name the group- for many it’s Catholicism] and I KNOW
that I have found and experienced God by leaving mistaken concepts about God.
Therefore any other ‘defender’ of Catholics is challenging my core experience’.
I myself attribute my conversion to ‘leaving religious ideas’ and reading the
bible for the first time. Though I had various believers witnessing to me, it
was the actual reading of Johns gospel [and the whole New Testament] that
clinched it for me. The reality of ‘whoever believes’ as opposed to religion.
But my own experience should not limit [in my mind] the reality of others who
also embraced the Cross without ‘leaving’ their former church. It is quite
possible that other ‘Catholics’ arrived at a serious level of commitment to the
Cross, while remaining faithful to their church. Now I realize this in itself
can become an issue of contention, all I want to show you is we should not
limit the power of the gospel to our own personal experience. During the recent
controversy [2008] over certain Pentecostal expressions of ‘revival’ some old
time churches simply made a case against all the Charisms [gifts] of the Spirit.
The fact is most theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit as being for all
ages of the church. Sure, there have been problems with them, even early on
[the Montanists] but the fact is there has always been some type of Charismatic
expression of Christianity thru out the church age. But the more Reformed
brother’s sound [and are often!] more ‘biblical’ than some of the crazy stuff
that happens under the banner of ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’. So the divisions
exist. In this chapter [Romans 11] Paul is dealing with a very real dynamic
that says ‘I find my whole identity in the way God has worked with me for
centuries [Judaism]. The fact that he began a new thing with other groups who I
detest [Gentiles] has offended me to the point where I can’t even experience
God any more’. Israel could not see past her own experience with God. The fact
that God was ‘being experienced’ by other groups in ways that seemed highly
‘unorthodox’ did not mean that their former experience was illegitimate. It
simply meant that Gods experience with them was always intended to ‘break out’
into the broader community of mankind. They lost this original intent and used
their ‘orthodoxy’ as a means of self identification. An ‘elite’ religious
class, if you will. I find many of these same dynamics being present in the
modern church. We should stand strong for orthodoxy, we also need to expose and
correct error when it gets to a point where many believers are being led
astray. But we also need to be able to see God at work in other groups, we
should not use our own experience with God [no matter how legitimate it is!] as
the criterion of what’s right or wrong.
CATECHISM of the
Catholic Church-
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is
holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but
does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it.
Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According
to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of
concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first
stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and
each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a
teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God. (1610, 2542, 2515)
1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy
of things to come.”17 It prophesies and presages the work
of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New
Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according
to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential
books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the
Kingdom of heaven. (122, 1828)
1977
Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the
justice of God.
1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit
received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression
above all in the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to
communicate grace to us.
I TALKED ABOUT THESE VIRTUES ON
THE VIDEO-
I. The Human Virtues
1804 Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable
dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our
actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and
faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good
life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. (2500, 1827)
The moral virtues are
acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts;
they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.
The
cardinal virtues
1805
Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the
others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and
temperance. “If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for
she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage.”64 These virtues are praised under
other names in many passages of Scripture.
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical
reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right
means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.”65 “Keep sane and sober for your
prayers.”66 Prudence is “right reason in
action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with
timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it
guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that
immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and
directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this
virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome
doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid. (1788, 1780)
1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in
the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice
toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one
to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the
harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The
just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by
habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor.
“You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in
righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”68 “Masters, treat your slaves justly
and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”69 (2095, 2401)
1808 Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures
firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It
strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the
moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of
death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce
and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. “The Lord is my strength and
my song.”70 “In the world you have tribulation;
but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”71 (2848, 2473)
1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the
attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It
ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits
of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites
toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your
inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.”72Temperance
is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but
restrain your appetites.”73 In the New Testament it is called
“moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives
in this world.”74 (2341, 2517)
Down
the road I hope to teach a bit more about the Catholic teaching of ‘the working
of the work’- meaning the Church teaches that the Sacraments ‘work’ regardless
of the holiness/faith of those administering them. It’s a controversy that
dates back to the early centuries of the Church [the Donatist controversy]. The
point I want to make here is the bible teaches that there are things we can
train ourselves to do- acts of prayer- fasting- etc.- that over time will train
the mind to think Godly thoughts [these practices of discipline work over time-
regardless of the way you feel]. I think one of the drawbacks from the
Protestant Reformation was the neglect of ‘works’- the role that good works
play in the Christian life. Paul [in Romans] says ‘as you have yielded your
parts as instruments of unrighteousness to sin- so now yield them as
instruments of righteousness unto God’. I added this section about Virtues
because I felt it covered this theme well.
Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her
seven pillars:
Proverbs 9:2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her
wine; she hath also furnished her table.
Proverbs 9:3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the
highest places of the city,
Proverbs 9:4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him
that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
Proverbs 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I
have mingled.
Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of
understanding.
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
ccoutreach87.wordpress.com
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post
them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.#
No comments:
Post a Comment