Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans

[Drich]

Drich, I don't understand why you persist in this hair-splitting. Paul's formula is pretty clear:

Sin nature + can't help sinning + heard the Truth of Gawd™ - accepting The Truth™ = Evil.

You're ignoring Paul's idea of redemptive theology, in which the ONLY difference between giving in to our evil impulses is to follow Jesus. Just because SOME are MORE evil-inclined than others doesn't mean he made a SPECIAL category for the former. You're telling us if we squint and look at it sideways we'll agree with your personal inside knowledge of Paul and not with the many Biblical experts from outside your clique.

As my drill instructior once advised me, "Sometimes, when everyone else is marching on the wrong foot, you should consider the possibility that it's really just you."

Book chapter and verse for your formula please.

Because in Chapter 2:10-16 Paul spells out we all sin with or without the law. (all are sinners/no good people.)

Those who love sin more than the truth/God are evil
Chapter 1:24/25 Those who wanted their sin more than God/truth are considered Evil.

Chapter 2 states Believers are still sinners/sinning all the time. Therefore are not to judge the Evil people, because we too are still guilty of the same sins the evil are. what seperates us is the love of sin the Evil have, verse the Love of God/truth we have. That's it.



So in formula form

Good= no one, not even the saved.

All=sinners
Sinner=Hope of redemption

Those who love sin more than God/truth= Evil
Evil people=God turned over to sin/No hope of redemption

Not all non believers are Evil.

While Paul is talking to the church at Rome, remember this message is a gospel message, meaning not everyone He is speaking to is currently a believer.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Drich, I don't understand why you persist in this hair-splitting. Paul's formula is pretty clear:

Sin nature + can't help sinning + heard the Truth of Gawd™ - accepting The Truth™ = Evil.

You're ignoring Paul's idea of redemptive theology, in which the ONLY difference between giving in to our evil impulses is to follow Jesus. Just because SOME are MORE evil-inclined than others doesn't mean he made a SPECIAL category for the former. You're telling us if we squint and look at it sideways we'll agree with your personal inside knowledge of Paul and not with the many Biblical experts from outside your clique.

As my drill instructior once advised me, "Sometimes, when everyone else is marching on the wrong foot, you should consider the possibility that it's really just you."

Book chapter and verse for your formula please.

Because in Chapter 2:10-16 Paul spells out we all sin with or without the law. (all are sinners/no good people.)

Those who love sin more than the truth/God are evil
Chapter 1:24/25 Those who wanted their sin more than God/truth are considered Evil.

Chapter 2 states Believers are still sinners/sinning all the time. Therefore are not to judge the Evil people, because we too are still guilty of the same sins the evil are. what seperates us is the love of sin the Evil have, verse the Love of God/truth we have. That's it.



So in formula form

Good= no one, not even the saved.

All=sinners
Sinner=Hope of redemption

Those who love sin more than God/truth= Evil
Evil people=God turned over to sin/No hope of redemption

Not all non believers are Evil.

While Paul is talking to the church at Rome, remember this message is a gospel message, meaning not everyone He is speaking to is currently a believer.

That's exactly what I said. 

Sinners all + (know The Truth of Gawd™ + accept The Way™ of Jayzus) = Not Evil

Sinners all + (know The Truth of Gawd™ - accept The Way™ of Jayzus) = Evil

The difference being that those who have not yet known the truth don't need to add in the part in the parentheses, according to Paul, as they may yet be following The Way™ without having heard the message, though they might just as well be rejecting The Way™ without having heard the message. 

It's still my formula.

[Drich]

The unrighteousness is in their unbelief.

God's existence is made clear through what can be seen (his creation) so it's not a special revelation to only a subset of unbelievers, dear Drich. It's a revelation available to all through perception. This is the point you keep ignoring. So even the Athenians in Acts 17 were supposed to have been aware of God (according to Romans 1). If you disagree, then you disagree with Romans 1:20, ok?

They suppress the truth through not following God and going for other gods instead. Again, this is made clear in Romans 1. And this is exactly what the Athenians in Acts 17 did.

Your problem is that you WANT there not to be a contradiction between Acts 17 and Romans 1, so you come up with some sneaky maneuvers to get the passages to reconcile but by doing so you pretty much have to disregard the context of Romans 1. That is not honest, Drich. Quite the contrary.

Who does Paul in Romans 1 say "They" are?

The Honest Answer is "They" does not refer to ALL Men. "They" only refers to Evil Men. How do we know this? Because in Chapter 2 "Sinful" believers are warned Not to Judge the Evil Men the "they" of Chapter 1.

This means that the men in chapter 1 Knew "They" should have acted righteously but did not. so THEY have no excuse. How ever the men of chapter 2 like the men of Acts 17 while still sinful are doing their best to act in accordance to the laws written on their hearts (The same laws the men of chapter 1 have ignored and have no excuse for ignoring,) because of the men in chapter 2 and acts 17 prove that it is possible to know God's will without having the law according to Paul in Romans 2

Before you respond I need you to sum up my position, i want to make sure you understand what and why I keep saying the same thing over and over. If you can't or won't do this then you forfeit the right to move forward. I not saying you have to be right i just want you to tell me what it is I am trying to tell you. I need to know if you are even reading anything. people who circle around to defeated points either are lost in the conversation, or simply run out of things to argue but need the last word so they start over.

I need to know where you are at here.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Agree with me or you are WRONG!

We get that he's saying "they" = those who choose to continue doing evil. We get it! What we don't agree with you on is that this means Paul was saying they are different from "us" in some other respect besides "accepts The Way of Gawd™ and tries to avoid both sin and evil by accepting that Way, even if they haven't heard The Way™ from us".

[Drich]

Book chapter and verse for your formula please.

Because in Chapter 2:10-16 Paul spells out we all sin with or without the law. (all are sinners/no good people.)

Those who love sin more than the truth/God are evil
Chapter 1:24/25 Those who wanted their sin more than God/truth are considered Evil.

Chapter 2 states Believers are still sinners/sinning all the time. Therefore are not to judge the Evil people, because we too are still guilty of the same sins the evil are. what seperates us is the love of sin the Evil have, verse the Love of God/truth we have. That's it.



So in formula form

Good= no one, not even the saved.

All=sinners
Sinner=Hope of redemption

Those who love sin more than God/truth= Evil
Evil people=God turned over to sin/No hope of redemption

Not all non believers are Evil.

While Paul is talking to the church at Rome, remember this message is a gospel message, meaning not everyone He is speaking to is currently a believer.

That's exactly what I said. 

Sinners all + (know The Truth of Gawd™ + accept The Way™ of Jayzus) = Not Evil

Sinners all + (know The Truth of Gawd™ - accept The Way™ of Jayzus) = Evil

The difference being that those who have not yet known the truth don't need to add in the part in the parentheses, according to Paul, as they may yet be following The Way™ without having heard the message, though they might just as well be rejecting The Way™ without having heard the message. 

It's still my formula.

all except Paul hasn't mention "the way of Jesus"... Your formula introduces a variable that Paul has not mentioned yet.

Paul is just identifying the human condition in relation to sin and Evil. The point being we are all sinful and one can be evil with absolutely no standing what so ever in or out of Christianity. Why?

Because before we can seek atonement or redemption/Jesus we must see and accept the source of our sin/evil. We must first learn to identify the evil in our hearts. Not as a anti-morality term used to judge people, but as love of our sins. Paul is pointing out that we can all justify/Be turned over to sin if we ignore the initial right/wrong response God has placed in all of us.

I could bring this back around to my arguement on homosexuality, but lets go with adultry as the principle is the same and it pertains to the same sexual sin.

Now imagine your married, and some little hottie chica bebops over and wants to hook up.. Now God  or no God in your life, what Paul is talking about (The auto response that in this case adultry is wrong) kicks in and the closer your are to the day you got married the easier it is to tell 'little miss can be wrong' to buzz off.

 Now lets say you are stranded on a desert island or in prison for a while, or better yet just married for 20+ years and married life is not treating to the fun stuff like it use to.. So your mind wanders, you take a second look, you turn to porn to help you get to your next Cialis moment with your wife and his and her bath tubs. Or even a step further 2/3's of your Cialis goes bad before you get to use it, and it's you and porn that doesnt really work anymore. Now little miss Can't be wrong wants to hook up... Not saying you hook up or not, but the fact that it's harder to tell her buzz off is what is meant here when Paul says we are turned over to sin. All of the excuses one has made to justify just giving her your number, or the reasons you have for texting after you spouce goes to bed, or the pics or the 'chatting' that comes after. all the little justifications you make to your self to make this 'moral'/whatever you tell yourself that makes you and even your friends believe you are a 'good person' and everyone else who would identify this as sin as the evil one, is what Paul is talking about here. So again, we haven't even Got to the Jesus part yet. Paul is simply seperating sin from Evil here.

The truly amazing thing is his seperation is not down most religious/christian lines. It's not about your specific acts, but in accordance to where your heart is in relation to those acts. for example in chapter 2:3 He clearly say "you do the same things the evil people do." So being evil has nothing to do with specific acts but our justification/want/love for them.

In the hammer of homosexuality thread that is why I said it was so dangerous try and legitmize a homosexual relationship with a wedding. Because simple redeemable sin becomes evil. Which is litterally spelled out in the Romans 1 list of evil.

[Drich]

Agree with me or you are WRONG!

We get that he's saying "they" = those who choose to continue doing evil. We get it! What we don't agree with you on is that this means Paul was saying they are different from "us" in some other respect besides "accepts The Way of Gawd™ and tries to avoid both sin and evil by accepting that Way, even if they haven't heard The Way™ from us".

Again "the way" has not even been tabled yet. that is why the "they" and "Us" distinction is so important

we are not talking about evil and saved. Paul is identifying Evil and sin. They=Evil, Us=everyone else saved or the ones who try and do right, but still sin.

[TubbyTubby]

https://youtu.be/c3DcChXNyYQ

I'm not so skilled in theology, I've really tried to make sense of all this but the only thing that came to mind was an old favourite tv programme.

When you gonna learn how to spell Drich?

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I just did 9 years in prison, was exonerated 9 months ago, and got out six months ago. You seem to have forgotten. I was offered sex many times, by guys I actually liked. Never once did I have a desire to actually have sex with them, and politely declined. Why? Because despite my "sin nature" and my rejection of everything your Gawd stands for, according to Paul and Pals, I have not developed sexually to be attracted to men. I similarly didn't get impulses to cheat on my Beloved, despite having been hit on by one of the super-cute nurses at one of the prisons... a chance for my first time to have sex in seven years (at that point)! But I didn't. Not because I didn't want to, or because I'd potentially get in trouble and get her fired (though the latter would have played a factor, had I been single, and I did caution her about that), but because I am in love with my fiancee and I gave her my word.

This is exactly why your weird little cult is so dangerous. You teach that something which is clearly people's innate nature is irrelevant; all that matters is whether or not we want to follow your cult's teachings.

I reject categorically your claim that I am evil because I reject your stupid, stupid system of arbitrary morality and substitute my own. I commit very few of the sins on the Christian list, just based on who I am and how I was raised... but I combat your type of asshole everywhere I can, on behalf of those who are also good people while also having another man for their mate. They are not evil.

You are evil, and all who are like you. You are anathema to the human race. You want my intellectual assessment of your entire philosophy?

Reach way, waaaaayyy up into your rectum, where you get the rest of this cult mantra bullshit you're spewing at us, then keep going, and if you can get the whole arm in there, you'll find it juuuust past the last pebble of shit. If you don't find it there, keep reaching. You'll only keep your hand outside of your ass if you don't want to know The Truth™.

[jenny1972]

Christ's own teaching pointed forward (after his own death) to a time where God would send the Holy Spirit to direct us in day to day life. Jesus never taught anything on how to receive the Holy Spirit. He tasked His Apstoles to to do this job. His was a work of carrying the burden of sin, and showing us by example how to live in a new way. He never taught the details of what his death burial and resurection meant. Why? Because this would re-establish the hierarchy of God, prophet, priest, and person seeking God. The Holy Spirit eliminates the middle men and puts God in direct contact with Everyone who wants that. (which is what happened in the second chapter of the book of Acts/After Jesus ascended)

All that said As a bible based Christian we must reconcile all of the teachings between all the different teachers/books. it's not an either or situation. Everything Christ taught works with everything Paul taught and vise versa.

if " Everything Christ taught works with everything Paul taught and vise versa " then why do you say "we must reconcile all of the teachings between all the different teachers/books" if its clear that there is no contradiction and if truely everything that christ taught works with everything paul taught why the need for apologetics to explain to people how if you just try real hard and interpret in a certain way its not really a contradiction . also 'if the Holy Spirit eliminates the middle men and puts God in direct contact with everyone' , where does jesus come in ? according to most christian theologians jesus , the son of God , not the Holy Spirit enables direct contact to God . i understand different denominations believe different things and everyone interprets differently but ive never heard of a christian who believes jesus is not the connection to God ...

---

If you have any teachings of Paul you need reconciled with what Jesus taught now would be a good time to bring that up

Jesus Says The Law Continues, But Paul Says No it doesnt...

Jesus's View on the Law:
Jesus emphasized the validity of the Law up through the passing away of Heaven and Earth, thus confirming its inspiration and ongoing validity. In Matthew 5:17-19 we read:(17) Think not that I came to destroy the Law [of Moses] or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the Law, till all things be accomplished [i.e., all things predicted appear on the stage of history]. (19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (ASV)Compare Luke 16:17 similarly says at a different time than the Sermon on the Mount -- meaning Jesus repeated the same point twice: " It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. (Luke 16:16-17 NIV.) and so Jesus can never be accused of seducing any Christian from following the Law (although paul can). Jesus cannot be a false prophet under Deuteronomy 13:5 (false prophet is anyone who has miracles and wonders but seduces you from following the Law). Jesus said the Law remained valid until the Heavens and Earth pass away. This passing of heaven and earth occurs at the end of the Millennium. This is 1000 years after Christ's Second Coming, according to the Book of Revelation.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
THAT ^  turns into 'jesus has done away with the Law and we are in a new covenant' ( jesus even spoke about false teachers who would say this very thing )

Paul's View on the Law :
Paul is blunt in Ephesians 2:15, Colossians 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:11-17, Romans 7:1-3 et seq, and Galatians 3:19 et seq. The Law is "abolished," "done away with," "nailed to a tree," "has faded away,' and was "only ordained by angels...who are no gods." If we were to cite Paul's condemnations of the Law in one string, the point is self-evident that Paul abrogated the Law for everyone. See Eph. 2:15 ("setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations"); Col. 2:14 ("having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;") 2 Cor. 3:14 ("old covenant"); Gal. 5:1 ("yoke of bondage"); Rom. 10:4 ("Christ is the end of the law" opposite of what jesus said ); 2 Cor. 3:7 ("law of death"); Gal. 5:1 ("entangles"); Col. 2:14-17 ("a shadow"); Rom. 3:27 ("law of works"); Rom. 4:15 ("works wrath"); 2 Cor. 3:9 (ministration of condemnation); Gal. 2:16 ("cannot justify"); Gal. 3:21 cannot give life  again opposite of what jesus says); Col. 2:14 ("wiped out" exaleipsas); Finally, in Romans 7:1-6, Paul claims when Jesus died, the husband died and this dissolved the Law's bonds between the husband (God of Sinai) and wife (God's people). This "made the law dead to us." (Romans 7:4.)

[jenny1972]

jesus and paul taught completely different things about salvation and what was required for a person to be saved and go to heaven :

jesus:
A servant of Jesus who produces no fruit is useless, and he will be "thrown...into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 25:14 et seq.) This place of weeping and gnashing is the "fiery furnace." (Matt. 13:42, 50.)

paul:
If fruit or works were necessary to avoid being thrown outside and be burned in hell where there is weeping and gnashing, it would be a salvation by works. Instead, salvation is by faith without any works. (Romans 4:4, 14; Eph. 2:8-9.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jesus:
Jesus said "a branch in me" that produces no fruit because it failed to keep staying "in me" will be thrown "outside" the vineyard. It is as a branch that died (dried up). It is gathered up into the fire and is burned. (John 15:1-6.)

paul:
If fruit or works were necessary to avoid being thrown outside God's vineyard, becoming dead and then being burned in hell, it would be a salvation by works. Instead, salvation is by faith without any works. (Romans 4:4, 14; Eph. 2:8-9.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
jesus:
If you receive the word with joy and "believe for a while," but in time of temptation, you fall away, you are lost. If you are choked by the pleasures of this world, and bring no fruit to completion, you are lost. If on the other hand, you bring forth fruit to the end, in patient endurance, you will be saved. (Luke 8:13-15.) You "shall be saved" if you "endured to the end." (Matt. 10:22.)

paul:
If you receive the word with joy and believe for a while, you are eternally saved. (Romans 8:1; 10:9.) Salvation cannot depend on you or anything you do thereafter. Otherwise, it is salvation by works. (Romans 4:4, 14; Eph. 2:8-9.) Thus, if you fall away or are choked with the pleasures of this life and have no fruit, you are still saved. There is no need to endure in faith as long as you believed once.