It dawned on me while going through the last few threads with you all that in most of your recounting of what Christianity is, most of you don't even know the basics of Christianity as described in the bible. Which begs the question how can you hate something if you don't truly understand it? I know it happens (My dad and "Space Book"/Face book, we havent even bothered to try and explain twitter or instagram) but even so, I thought it might be nice to provide an actual line by line biblical over view of the book of romans, for those who want to know the truth or even for those who want to focus their hate on fact rather than what they remembered from sunday school.
So, Why Romans? Because when Paul wrote to the newly established church (he has sent a few of his deciples to stir up intrest and had planned to teach the gospel there personally, but got held up) So he wrote out the complete Gospel message from start to finish all in one book/Letter to the Romans. What is the Gospel exactly? In the book of Romans the gospel message is completely spelled out. It establishes the Law, the identification of sin, repentance, redemption, the new relationship we have with the law, our role with sin moving forward, our relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit, more or less the how and why of salvation/christianity.
To Paul this is all considered "Milk of the word" Meaning simple to understand/easy to digest. Verses the Meat of the word which is reserved for the more spiritually mature. The reason I am sharing this with you all is not as an attempt to save all of you, but to educate all of you on the actual biblical christian position. You all typically want to engage in 'Meat topic/debates' when you obviously don't have a grasp on the milk, and as a result are choking on the more meatier topics. (From a biblical perspective anyway I'm sure all of you do very well when grading each other's works.)
So then the question becomes why does this 'intrpretation' supposedly trump another "bible based doctrine" concerning the gospel? It doesn't when or if you are comparing the doctrines of individual expressions/denominations of faith. Meaning if you are looking to what it means to be Catholic verse baptist, this look at romans will not help you discern which doctrine is which, or even which if either is right. This look at romans however allow you to see a Contextual line by line explaination by Paul Himself telling us what the gospel is, all that means. Verses cherry picking the gospel from many different sources/many different books chapters and verses and compile it all into one patch work doctrine.
If you think about it, up until 4th or 5 century most people would not have access to all the different canonical books/letters in one bible, meaning they would not be able to put together that particular denominational doctrine if compiled from several different sources.
On the Other side of the coin what we have in the book of Romans is Paul's very own explaination of the Gospel, the same gospel would have been used with the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Timothy (of 1&2 timothy) , and Luke (of the book of Luke and the book of Acts) would have been taught and in turn taught this gospel in their own ministries. How can I say this? Again because Paul in hopes of establishing a Church in Rome sent His understanding of the gospel/what it means to be christian to the church at Rome, and we also know that Paul taught all these people listed. So in essence 2/3's of the first century church used this specific 'milk of the word' to establish their Christianity/belief.
For one seeking the truth, if one's own church/religious doctrine compiled from many different sources, conflicts with what Paul taught in romans, then for the bible based Christian what is said in Romans trumps any church doctrine UNLESS the arguement is concerning the specifics of that particular brand of worship. (What it means to be Catholic, Baptist ect...) Which would then inturn mean for the unbelieve would essentially be the same. If you believe 'X' about christianity and what paul says is "Y" then your "X" would be wrong, which I hope will help some of you retire some of the broken arguements you goto when ever certain topics come up.
Now, before we get into the actual study does anyone want to try and poo poo on what I've said here so far?
If so I will give a max of 2 days of back and fourth, before I move on to the next chapter. at the end we can discuss anything, but for the sake of getting through the book in a month's time I am going to have to set a max limit or move on daily if their are no questions or concerns.
So, Why Romans? Because when Paul wrote to the newly established church (he has sent a few of his deciples to stir up intrest and had planned to teach the gospel there personally, but got held up) So he wrote out the complete Gospel message from start to finish all in one book/Letter to the Romans. What is the Gospel exactly? In the book of Romans the gospel message is completely spelled out. It establishes the Law, the identification of sin, repentance, redemption, the new relationship we have with the law, our role with sin moving forward, our relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit, more or less the how and why of salvation/christianity.
To Paul this is all considered "Milk of the word" Meaning simple to understand/easy to digest. Verses the Meat of the word which is reserved for the more spiritually mature. The reason I am sharing this with you all is not as an attempt to save all of you, but to educate all of you on the actual biblical christian position. You all typically want to engage in 'Meat topic/debates' when you obviously don't have a grasp on the milk, and as a result are choking on the more meatier topics. (From a biblical perspective anyway I'm sure all of you do very well when grading each other's works.)
So then the question becomes why does this 'intrpretation' supposedly trump another "bible based doctrine" concerning the gospel? It doesn't when or if you are comparing the doctrines of individual expressions/denominations of faith. Meaning if you are looking to what it means to be Catholic verse baptist, this look at romans will not help you discern which doctrine is which, or even which if either is right. This look at romans however allow you to see a Contextual line by line explaination by Paul Himself telling us what the gospel is, all that means. Verses cherry picking the gospel from many different sources/many different books chapters and verses and compile it all into one patch work doctrine.
If you think about it, up until 4th or 5 century most people would not have access to all the different canonical books/letters in one bible, meaning they would not be able to put together that particular denominational doctrine if compiled from several different sources.
On the Other side of the coin what we have in the book of Romans is Paul's very own explaination of the Gospel, the same gospel would have been used with the Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Timothy (of 1&2 timothy) , and Luke (of the book of Luke and the book of Acts) would have been taught and in turn taught this gospel in their own ministries. How can I say this? Again because Paul in hopes of establishing a Church in Rome sent His understanding of the gospel/what it means to be christian to the church at Rome, and we also know that Paul taught all these people listed. So in essence 2/3's of the first century church used this specific 'milk of the word' to establish their Christianity/belief.
For one seeking the truth, if one's own church/religious doctrine compiled from many different sources, conflicts with what Paul taught in romans, then for the bible based Christian what is said in Romans trumps any church doctrine UNLESS the arguement is concerning the specifics of that particular brand of worship. (What it means to be Catholic, Baptist ect...) Which would then inturn mean for the unbelieve would essentially be the same. If you believe 'X' about christianity and what paul says is "Y" then your "X" would be wrong, which I hope will help some of you retire some of the broken arguements you goto when ever certain topics come up.
Now, before we get into the actual study does anyone want to try and poo poo on what I've said here so far?
If so I will give a max of 2 days of back and fourth, before I move on to the next chapter. at the end we can discuss anything, but for the sake of getting through the book in a month's time I am going to have to set a max limit or move on daily if their are no questions or concerns.
