......sorry to jump in here, but are you saying that we are to be perfect like God, as in "perfect"??? Like flawless, no error, infallible, etc.? I must've missed something, 'cause you can't mean that.
Surely you understand that His life being lived through us is the perfection that God is speaking about. Do you not understand that the righteousness we have is HIS?
Anyway, what do YOU think Jesus meant by saying be perfect as God?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Surely you understand that His life being lived through us is the perfection that God is speaking about. Do you not understand that the righteousness we have is HIS?
Anyway, what do YOU think Jesus meant by saying pee perfect as God?
I just had to quote this before it got edited.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I already sent him a PM about it, because I knew you were online!!!!
Anyway, to one that knows that typos exist and are clearly overlooked when you type and engage at length! I'm the typo queen! Never see it until later when it's too late. LOL!
I wholeheartedly disagree. I am shocked you state this. Exegesis and correct hermeneutics requires us to address the question of whom the writing was given originally and why. There is no assumption of anything. In fact, to miss this vital issue of whom the book was written to will take one precisely in the direction to which you have gone with the very doctrine of salvation! And that chills my bones.
I cannot express how much a person has to realize, especially after reading this thread, of how vitally important it is to know that Romans was written to a church of saved people and reading it with that in mind is absolutely vital, and offers NO ASSSUMPTION whatsoever.
I mean, it is as much error to say otherwise as to read Peters words of how baptism saves and then say baptism is not part of salvation (1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:).
Paul wrote to believing Jews and gentiles, but mostly to the believing Jews who were caught up in the same error that Paul faced in Acts which called for the Council at Jerusalem to deal with the question of Gentiles in the church and circumcision.
Adam Clarke wrote:
Though this epistle is directed to the Romans, yet we are not to suppose that Romans, in the proper sense of the word, are meant; but rather those who dwelt at Rome, and composed the Christian Church in that city: that there were among these Romans, properly such, that is heathens who had been converted to the Christian faith, there can be no doubt; but the principal part of the Church in that city seems to have been formed from Jews, sojourners at Rome, and from such as were proselytes to the Jewish religion.
...
finding that they consisted partly of heathens converted to Christianity, and partly of Jews who had, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the true Messiah, and that many contentions arose from the claims of the Gentile converts to equal privileges with the Jews, and from the absolute refusal of the Jews to admit these claims unless the Gentile converts became circumcised, he wrote to adjust and settle these differences.
...
Therefore, in an epistle directed to Roman believers, the point to be endeavored after by St. Paul was to reconcile the Jewish converts to the opinion that the Gentiles were admitted by God to a parity of religious situation with themselves, and that without their being obliged to keep the law of Moses. In this epistle, though directed to the Roman Church in general, it is, in truth, a Jew writing to Jews. Accordingly, as often as his argument leads him to say any thing derogatory from the Jewish institution, he constantly follows it by a softening clause.
John Gill:
The persons to whom this epistle was sent were Roman saints, both Jews and Gentiles, inhabiting the city of Rome; of which city and church;
Albert Barnes:
Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews;
It is a minimalizing of an EPISTLE to a CHURCH, and refusal to deal with the fact that sermons preached to sinners included Acts 2:38's elements, and insistence on maintaining one's doctrine that one need not be baptized and Spirit filled with tongues, to deny this fact that the epistle was NOT WRITTEN TO SINNERS.
Wow, you guys. God love you, but, wow.
One thousand times NO! I would make this an issue of fellowship! Really.
The argument they are making is not that Romans was written to sinners....
There are two arguments that are being made. One is that those passages in Romans make no sense if seen as a summary of 3 steps because no three stepper would ever summarize salvation in the way that Romans does.
The other argument is that it is very hard to believe that in every epistle and every other book that was written to the church, that the process of salvation was never mentioned anymore than in passing and summary.
The argument they are making is not that Romans was written to sinners....
I know. But it is highly implicating as to what conclusion one makes of why Romans 10 says what it says.
Quote:
There are two arguments that are being made. One is that those passages in Romans make no sense if seen as a summary of 3 steps because no three stepper would ever summarize salvation in the way that Romans does.
The other argument is that it is very hard to believe that in no epistle or any other book to the church that the process of salvation was ever mentioned anymore than in passing and summary.
I agree that is the point. But again how one views whom Romans was written to and why is going to implicate one of the two arguments you listed.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I know. But it is highly implicating as to what conclusion one makes of why Romans 10 says what it says.
I agree that is the point. But again how one views whom Romans was written to and why is going to implicate one of the two arguments you listed.
Saying that Romans was written to believers doesn't give an explanation for either of those arguments. However neither argument given actually proves that Romans couldn't be a summary of salvation. Also 3 steppers today have an adaquate reason not to use that language that is in Romans. They could claim they refrain from language like that because of how many other churches have twisted it into a message of salvation at belief.
Saying that Romans was written to believers doesn't give an explanation for either of those arguments.
I disagree, but I have said why so no use repeating it.
Quote:
However neither argument given actually proves that Romans couldn't be a summary of salvation. Also 3 steppers today have an adaquate reason not to use that language that is in Romans. They could claim they refrain from language like that because of how many other churches have twisted it into a message of salvation at belief.
Interesting point.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
How does the audience to which Romans was written, in any way, support the idea of a 3 step new birth?
We all know UPC pastors will not stop teaching the Acts 2:38 message to their congregations.... why? Because they want to safeguard their message. They want to make sure their version of truth is carried on without compromise. I submit that the notion the epistles do not contain salvational truth just because they are directed to "saved people" is an extremely weak, if not fully invalid, proposition. Many things are written in the epistles in answer to legalism, gnosticism, and other false issues which began to creep into the congregations.
The epistles hold full salvational truth because they are written to safeguard the truth against heresy. That the 3 step view is not presented is strong evidence the view was not thought of as truth to be safeguarded.
Linear Mode
