| Poster | Thread |
ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: Taking it a bit further | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
Is this clarifying for you yet?
Indeed it is.
Quote:
Is it the word 'so' in your TEV Rom 3:4 (that in the KJV) which is causing the problems? Try substituting the word 'thus' for 'so' and see if it makes more sense.
Can't do that it would give the kingjamerites to much milage. :-P
Seriously though thanks for the suggestion.
After taking the passage apart I am left with another couple of questions.
What about Pauls preaching/teaching and presentation of the gospel message could give the impression that he was saying that...Let us do evil, that good may come?Rom 3:8 KJV 8-)
In my reading of the New Testament I never get the impression that that is what he was suggesting.
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|
 2005/6/20 15:50 | Profile |
ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Re: | | Quote:
dorcas wrote:
It is not 'easy' to 'get' first time round!
If only I could use that excuse, it would'nt be so bad. :lol:
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|
| 2005/6/20 15:55 | Profile |
| | Re: | | ZekeO
Quote:
In my reading of the New Testament I never get the impression that that is what he was suggesting.
I think this is because whatever Paul had said which allowed malicious misinterpretations to be made after he had been preaching or debating, he explained himself even more fully in the written word, precisely so we could not make that mistake. |
|
| 2005/6/20 15:57 | |
ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Maybe | | Quote:
dorcas wrote:
I think this is because whatever Paul had said which allowed malicious misinterpretations to be made after he had been preaching or debating, he explained himself even more fully in the written word, precisely so we could not make that mistake.
This may be an answer, but then are we not preaching a different gospel to him? I think it took the form more of what he did'nt say in presenting the gospel that got him into trouble.
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|
| 2005/6/20 16:01 | Profile |
| | Re: Maybe | | ZekeO,
Quote:
I think it took the form more of what he did'nt say in presenting the gospel that got him into trouble.
I'm not an expert, but I read of Paul debating day after day, answering questions and explaining things. It is difficult to think he was not faced with every possible objection to the gospel and this makes it quite possible, in my view, that he could be misquoted or slandered afterwards, forcing him to make the refutation in the passage you chose. |
|
| 2005/6/22 20:00 | |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
In my reading of the New Testament I never get the impression that that is what he was suggesting.
It's not that Paul was suggesting it, but that unscrupulous people could put this construction on his teaching.
There is a challenge here too. I know we all like to be quick to add the checks and balances, but do we preach a gospel that is so absolutely 'grace' orientated to the degree that people could misinterpret what we are saying? If we are not accused of saying this, is it because we are not saying what Paul was saying? Could they put this construction on our preaching?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2005/6/23 15:33 | Profile |
ZekeO
Member
Joined: 2004/7/4
Posts: 1014
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
| | Challenging questions | | Quote:
philologos wrote:
There is a challenge here too. I know we all like to be quick to add the checks and balances, but do we preach a gospel that is so absolutely 'grace' orientated to the degree that people could misinterpret what we are saying? If we are not accused of saying this, is it because we are not saying what Paul was saying? Could they put this construction on our preaching?
Thankyou for putting into words what I was only vaguely trying to express. :-)
This feels like a veiled subject at the momment for me, The questions are there to be asked and the answers are there to be found.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Prov 25:2
_________________
Zeke Oosthuis
|
|
| 2005/6/23 15:57 | Profile |
Welch
Member
Joined: 2005/6/23
Posts: 13
Florida
| | Re: Challenging questions | | The problem is not that those people (Paul's subject of unfaithful and ungodly Jews) where misinterpreting or confusing Pauls words, but it was that they where purposefully misconstruing his clear message for their own benefit. These Jews carried the same ideas and arguments (as someone posted earlier) against Jesus. They knew where they stood when compared against the truth Paul presented versus the Law that they whimsically followed (and only half of it at that). They where purposefully attempting to mock him by saying, 'so if you say God is honored by his grace through Jesus on our sin, shouldn't our sin be glorifying to him?' it is possible that there where some (I'm sure alien Gentiles that had no understanding of God) that may have had some genuine questions such as these that Paul was trying to answer. One principal that cannot be emphasized enough is the fact of Paul stating that if you have recieved grace through Jesus then you will autommatically obey they law (See Romans 2:15). The go's against the Jews justifiaction and self-righteous patterns of pretending to obey the Law and that alone will bring you into God's grace. Pau;'s shwing that the Law is not a bad thing, if it where why would we obey it when we are transformed? He is saying that not one can stand, no one is Holy when compared to the Law only God is but through his Son, Jesus they may be changed and will then obey the Law but most importantly walk with God. That's the whole principal of Pauls teaching's is for people to flee their comfort zones of following the Law (or so they pretended to), circumcision, etc. to elevate themselves over Gentiles and excuse themselves from their actions that they where justified in doing :-p and embrace the calling of Christ to a 'personal' relationship with God versus doing old traditions to appease a powerful master that he may have grace to you and not punishment. Sorry for the rant but I get excited when I think of how our Father gave us a living book that shows Grace and Love everlasting in every scripture in some way or another!
All in all I think that there where some genuine questions by recently converted Jews and/or Gentiles that where ignorant of Paul's teachings that he was trying to answer plus there where 'religeous' Jews who where attempting to scoff and mock, either to stop his teaching's or to ease their own guilt of not following God, Pauls message that he cleared in Chapters 2-3 of Romans. As far as what Promises versus Law means to me personally... I feel like they are indeed seperate, no I don't feel like I know. First the Law is not wrong or too old, that's like saying the Old Testament is out of date. If we are to accept Salvation for oursleves and Live a life pleasing to God His word lays out rewards and promises that will be kept for our lives (i.e. Fruits of the Spirirt, peace that passes all understanding, Joy, Life everlasting, heaven here on earth, etc.) In living this life for God with a personal and daily fellowship with Him we will automatically keep his commandments/Law and live a life pleasing to him.
I hope I helped someone or encouraged someone through this! I love you all.
|
|
| 2005/6/24 11:18 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
That's the whole principal of Pauls teaching's is for people to flee their comfort zones of following the Law (or so they pretended to), circumcision, etc. to elevate themselves over Gentiles and excuse themselves from their actions that they where justified in doing :-p and embrace the calling of Christ to a 'personal' relationship with God versus doing old traditions to appease a powerful master that he may have grace to you and not punishment...
I hope I helped someone or encouraged someone through this!
You blessed me! I appreciate how you explained this, thanks. |
|
| 2005/6/24 12:55 | |
