Romans

[CSMR]

I think you are trying to read anti-Jewish sentiment

I don't detect any such sentiment!

If corrections are laws, then the teachers in my school years wrote many and many laws.

Not all corrections, but corrections which have as their aim making a person morally better. This is ultimately the wrong approach, because the Law actually makes people worse (Rom. 7).

Wisdom and advice doesn't come only in the form of laws.

Sure.

What law did Moses state in regard to "judgmental attitude"?
This is not an issue of the Law.

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

<<4. Even on the subject of judgement of others, Paul's aim is not to treat this as a problem to be eliminated:>>
I guess he differs from Jesus. "Do no judge lest you be judged." -did I quote and ascribe this correctly?

Yes, you did. I believe that Jesus is making the same point as Paul. I do not believe that Jesus is giving a literal command here, but instead making the observation that with the judgement with which we judge (that is, condemning a person for sin) we ourselves will be judged. This assumes that our judgement is accurate! Just as our judgement falls on others God's judgement falls on us. Ceasing to judge is not a means to not being judged. Otherwise those evil people in Rom 1 who even approve evil in others will escape judgement because they do not judge. Not being judged however -being under grace - is a means to not judging.

This is interesting. Is there something good about unrighteous judgments being made by believers? Is there something good about Christians hating the Jews?

Christians do not judge, as Jesus said. Is there something good about unrighteous judgements made by unbelievers? Not something morally good, but something true. These judgements attest to the judgement of God.

God bless you.

And you!

CSMR

 

[mikesw]

Hi CSMR,

Indeed 3:20-21 would be one of the main points that Paul wants to convey or reaffirm. Such may be one of the main truths we should understand. Yet the significance of this point doesn't mean that such verses are key to the flow of Paul's message.

CSMR writes:
<<Paul does not intend to correct this judgement as his primary goal, even if it has the nature of sin. Sin is removed by grace through faith, as Paul is keen to show, and if grace and faith are there, all sin is defeated, not only one particular sin. If the Romans are self-righteously judgmental, then they are not forgiven (Jesus - those who do not forgive and those who are not forgiven are just the same people)>>

Hence, Paul must get them to forgive. Such may then be the last thing keeping the Romans from being saved.
Even after someone becomes numbered (as numbered by men) among the believers there still remains an effort to keep them among the chosen. (It is with difficulty that the righteous are saved. 1Pet 4:18)

Okay let's take a look at where we are:
1. We both agree that Romans shows that at least some forms of judging is wrong and that such judging is not right for Christians.
2. We both agree that 3:20-21 is a core revelation to help the Church. I think also that you agree that Romans speaks against any tendencies of believers to go legalistic (following a set of laws) and essentially that we are only under the law of Christ -- which is the commandment to believers to love one another. (And you might then agree that we don't live lawlessly as long as we follow that one commandment?)
3. Paul isn't being anti-semitic. And I don't seem to be expressing anti-semitism in my presentation of Romans.
4. Judging a fellow believer by the law is often(if not always) wrong. And the person who isn't a believer is a law breaker and guilty.
5. Jesus isn't giving a commandment but just showing a tendency of reciprocity in saying "don't judge lest you be judged."

Differences in perspective:
1. You say logically speaking that a Christian cannot judge. I say that a Christian can judge to his possible detriment. This difference affects the understanding of Romans. (This affects Ro 2:1)
2. You say in a similar manner that believers can't sin. I say that believers can sin to their detriment. (This affects Ro 6)
3. You say that if Paul is trying to stop the Romans from judging, he would be attempting to change them morally by placing them under the law. I say that Paul is telling them that their hand is on the hot stove and that they should remove it. (Paul was correcting the Romans and not holding them to a law such as Lev 19:17 [quoted earlier by you])
4. You say that we will be judged if we make an accurate judgment. I would say by reminder that if a judgment is righteous (both in points of fact as well as in motive of the judgment) that such a judgment is good.
5. You see Romans as just a letter of encouraging and important points of "theology". I see Romans as first correcting problems such as boasting (Ro 3:27) and using their freedom for sin (Ro 6), then Romans also covers important doctrine (first in the context of the problem in Ch 1 to 11 and then in the general instruction of Ch 12 to the end)

Well the difference in understanding of the purpose of Romans stems in this case from interpretations and assumptions that are irreconcilable unless each of the critical diverging points (from above) were resolved.

From my biased position (my assumption I'm write on these points), I can say in general that it seems you see some sciptures in a more idealistic (or should I say "pure") manner than scripture teaches. But no of this would seem to be of a major consequence, yet the divergence is enough to make my presentation of the "purpose of romans" unacceptable.

In my idealist view, I thought my simple presentation of my thoughts would readily convince other people.

We could continue discussing stuff here. But the discussion could become different forum topics: "What is sin?", "When does something becoming judgment rather than correction?", "When is judging okay?"

 

[CSMR]

Thanks for the useful summary of the discussion. A useful discussion I think. Generally a very accurate summary, though I will need to clarify a few points.

CSMR

2. We both agree that 3:20-21 is a core revelation to help the Church. I think also that you agree that Romans speaks against any tendencies of believers to go legalistic (following a set of laws) and essentially that we are only under the law of Christ -- which is the commandment to believers to love one another. (And you might then agree that we don't live lawlessly as long as we follow that one commandment?)

I don't distinguish the laws given to the Jews, properly interpreted, and the "law of Christ". They are both "the Law" and both commands to love God and our neighbour. The Jews were given this law and even the gentiles have this law, as Paul argues.
We are judged by the law/laws/"law of Christ" but we are not under the law/laws/"law of Christ". The law is there convicting our flesh of sin, but we are righteous through Christ.
(Paul also uses Law to mean compulsion - for instance the law of sin which works in him. In that sense we can be under the law of Christ, if Christ works in us.)

1. You say logically speaking that a Christian cannot judge. I say that a Christian can judge to his possible detriment. This difference affects the understanding of Romans. (This affects Ro 2:1)

Almost this. Not that he cannot, but that he won't, at least not in a way that condemns rather than that discerns sin.

2. You say in a similar manner that believers can't sin. I say that believers can sin to their detriment. (This affects Ro 6)

Believers do sin. I would say that when Paul says "are we any better?" he is referring to believers. Believers however are not in sin, and are sinless before God, because of Christ's atonement, even while at the same time in the flesh they are in sin. This paradox accounts for some of the difficulty of Romans.

4. You say that we will be judged if we make an accurate judgment. I would say by reminder that if a judgment is righteous (both in points of fact as well as in motive of the judgment) that such a judgment is good.

Sure, it is truthful and not wrong to recognise sin in another. This sin is also in us, and will be judged likewise (apart from grace in Christ). Not as a result of judging - we are judged anyway - but in the same way as we judge.

5. You see Romans as just a letter of encouraging and important points of "theology". I see Romans as first correcting problems such as boasting (Ro 3:27) and using their freedom for sin (Ro 6), then Romans also covers important doctrine (first in the context of the problem in Ch 1 to 11 and then in the general instruction of Ch 12 to the end)

I do view Romans as giving an integrated account of what Christian faith is - compared to say 1 Corinthians, which can be seen structurally in terms of the problems you give and the wrong attitudes from which they come. Once faith is made sure, the problems will be corrected.

 

[mikesw]

After I discovered the argument that Paul was making (and someone that knows about arguments should eventually see that Paul is carefully making an argument) I searched on the Internet and found among the common purposes ascribed there was the one I was observing. (This review of Romans was from some House or Home Church website -- which was something also interesting to me). The intro to Romans mentioned the article "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans" , page 174-184, April-June 1988 Bibliotheca Sacra by Walter B. Russell, III

[The purpose is suggested]: "In an exhortive letter confronting their Jewish/Gentile relationships, Paul challenged the Roman churches to participate fully in God's present harvest of all peoples by showing that their ethnocentrism opposed God's eternal plan of justifying people by faith, of giving them new life in the Spirit, and of mercifully placing them in His redemptive plan."

Walter Russell describes the problem of its understanding comes as an effect of the western cultural influences ("a culture-bound lens" --pg 177). This western culture interpretation interprets Paul's writings as being introspective and figurative.

[Note that in today's theological developments, we have to be careful of those theologians that try to strip away any western culture through their connections (e.g. emotional or philosophical) to post modernism modes of thought. I wasn't even aware of such post modern theologians until nearly a year after writing out my understanding of Paul. And I don't sense this Post Modernism perspective in Walter Russell's writing. But if you follow NT Wright, people seem to be associate him with this post modernist movement.]

I would think that we have been influenced greatly by Martin Luther's description of Romans and then by many writers who have followed the same vein.
(The interesting aspect of reading Martin Luther is that he shows so much understanding and insight into scripture that seems as current as anything we hear from bible scholars today. But of course on this issue I would say that it seems that Luther didn't recognize Paul's subtle argument.)

The reader of Romans really has to ask why the twist at Ro 2:1 occurs. The whole sequence of Paul's argument comes by answering Paul's reason for saying " Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things." This verse always seemed so foreign to the rest of Paul's discussion. Now it seems central to the discussion.


cb(2,2);

 

[danten]

​

Gift

What better way to celebrate your Christian roots than by owning a piece of land in Jesus' birthplace. ​

unique Gift and a unique image gift box

We offer you a unique opportunity to own 12 Square Inches. inches of land on this historic site in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee where Jesus began his mission. Here is where he preached and here is where everything started.

 

[danten]

gewrgegre​