Thursday, July 27, 2006
Sorry about that....I'm back.
I really have too many irons...not just in the fire, but too many period. Maybe I should trade some in for brass... (It may take some you a while to get that:)
ANNNyway- I have been CONSUMED by Romans the past week or so...I sincerely believe that the more I really soak in the writings of Paul, the more I am convinced he is as brilliant and as skilled in the ways of subtle articulation as Aristotle or Shakespeare. And although his larger, intended message in any given letter could have easily been discerned by most Jews or Gentiles of the 1st century, the layers that are there, underneath, challenge the best minds of our time as well....There are no wasted words. Ever. The word of God shakes my soul to the very core. I am in complete and utter awe of it. Imagine how it will be in the presence of the One who it is about.
I am wrestling with trying to read Romans within it's Historical context, as though I were a pagan roman who has heard the Ευαγγέλιο Χριστού...(Gospel of Christ) while trying to reconstruct Paul's worldview as a lifelong Parisee, walking around as a Roman citizen and having met the risen Savior, now converted to this new theology.... Not an easy task...but I believe, for me, imperative to understanding what is really being said.
As much controversy as 1st Cor. 15 and 1st and 2nd Timothy has caused in our immediate faith (COC) over the years, Romans has brought about much more fundemental disagreements in the wider protestant world.
Here's a sample:
Romans 3:21..pretty much the scripture where I first saw the true Gospel....
NIV translates dikaiosune Theu as "Righteousness From God"...When in fact the greek is "Righteousness OF God"....as several of the literal translations correctly say. How does this change what Romans 3:21 says to you? What about 1:17? Same greek phrase....Not that the idea of Imputed Righteousness isn't supported by scripture elsewhere...but what is 3:21 about if it's not imputed righteousness?
Anyway....It was good to play at Crosspoint last Friday...It was good to play at Handy last night. It'll be good to play at the Bluebird on Aug 19th and 21th and at seaside (watercolor) the 24th. Sooner or later I'm gonna actually remember the words to my songs:)
Above is a picture of my new flag. It's a Confederate 1st national pattern that was made around 1890-1900. UCV=United Confederate Veterans. It's 60" X 39". It'll be interesting to see where Dawn lets me put it:)
Peace to those who seek it...
bc
# posted by Brad Crisler @ 12:50 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I heard that Friday night was great. I hated to miss it. I'm sure last night was great as well. Good luck with the flag... I'll also be anxious to see where it ends up! ;o)
Hey - back to Helen Keller Fest. I WAS IN TOWN AND I'M UPSET I DIDN'T KNOW YOU GUYS WERE GOING TO BE THERE! Not that you check my schedule to see if it fits yours. LOL Just wanted to say I'm sad I missed the opportunity.
glad you're back! great to see you friday, even though I didn't get to hear you. sorry about that. i'm about to burn my "brad's greatest hits" cd!
# posted by 
: 10:37 AM
: 10:37 AM
Ah! So the KJV is right!
I don't know...I'm not sure that changes the basic message. I mean, it might change the specific meaning of verse 21, but I don't see that it changes what chapter 3 says overall. Now, keep in mind, I'm not reading this in Greek, this is just a quick reading, but it seems that Paul could be saying that we are justified by grace (v. 24), because of God's righteousness (v. 21).
So if verse 21 isn't about imputed righteousness, I think the overall passage is still about the fact that we're redeemed by the blood of Jesus.
Either way, we're saved by the grace of God.
I don't know...I'm not sure that changes the basic message. I mean, it might change the specific meaning of verse 21, but I don't see that it changes what chapter 3 says overall. Now, keep in mind, I'm not reading this in Greek, this is just a quick reading, but it seems that Paul could be saying that we are justified by grace (v. 24), because of God's righteousness (v. 21).
So if verse 21 isn't about imputed righteousness, I think the overall passage is still about the fact that we're redeemed by the blood of Jesus.
Either way, we're saved by the grace of God.
Jim-
Of course you are right...I believe we are Justified by God B/C of his grace (slightly different than being saved BY grace) But, there are many who believe that 3:21 (and 1:17) refer to the Covenant Faithfulness of God...And that this isn't about how a person gets saved..It's about what constitutes membership in God's covenant people...his new humanity. I think that unless some Jewish covenant theology is used to filter the text of Romans here, we have a hard time figuring out what he's saying in chap. 9-11. (or 2:5-11) Many scholars break Romans (and Paul for that matter) into seperate themes with Paul making the occasional aside comment where he either loses his mind or forgets his theology or because he's so used to Jewish Torah mentality, he "runs home to Mama" with statements like 2:5-11. I don't believe any of those are correct ways of interpreting Romans or Paul. I think it's much more narative than that. He is telling his and the Jews and the Gentiles story to that point. Paul will say things at the begining of this letter as a tease..Kinda"I'll get back to that later"...and he does 5 chapters later. The context, then, is the whole of the letter. That's why I think it's almost a sin to take any part of Romans and preach on it without the full context of the letter. Like, for example, seeing the lawcourt language of v24 as you mention, through the filter of Jewish-tradition lawcourt instead of our worldview filter of what that means. Words like Redemption, Justification have meanings, I believe, outside of what we have assigned them. I refer you to the below link...Then onto regent college audio, Romans in a week..NT Wright.
http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html
..and yes,the KJV is right on that :)
bc
Of course you are right...I believe we are Justified by God B/C of his grace (slightly different than being saved BY grace) But, there are many who believe that 3:21 (and 1:17) refer to the Covenant Faithfulness of God...And that this isn't about how a person gets saved..It's about what constitutes membership in God's covenant people...his new humanity. I think that unless some Jewish covenant theology is used to filter the text of Romans here, we have a hard time figuring out what he's saying in chap. 9-11. (or 2:5-11) Many scholars break Romans (and Paul for that matter) into seperate themes with Paul making the occasional aside comment where he either loses his mind or forgets his theology or because he's so used to Jewish Torah mentality, he "runs home to Mama" with statements like 2:5-11. I don't believe any of those are correct ways of interpreting Romans or Paul. I think it's much more narative than that. He is telling his and the Jews and the Gentiles story to that point. Paul will say things at the begining of this letter as a tease..Kinda"I'll get back to that later"...and he does 5 chapters later. The context, then, is the whole of the letter. That's why I think it's almost a sin to take any part of Romans and preach on it without the full context of the letter. Like, for example, seeing the lawcourt language of v24 as you mention, through the filter of Jewish-tradition lawcourt instead of our worldview filter of what that means. Words like Redemption, Justification have meanings, I believe, outside of what we have assigned them. I refer you to the below link...Then onto regent college audio, Romans in a week..NT Wright.
http://www.thepaulpage.com/Shape.html
..and yes,the KJV is right on that :)
bc
All this "new perspective on Paul" makes my head hurt.
I mean, come on! I just got done breaking out of my CoC legalism heritage with an understanding that Paul wasn't directly addressing circumcision, but that he was addressing the larger picture of grace vs. legalism, now you're going to tell me, "no, he wasn't talking about grace vs. legalism, he was specifically addressing circumcision"?
How am I supposed to deal with that??
:)
Post a Comment
I mean, come on! I just got done breaking out of my CoC legalism heritage with an understanding that Paul wasn't directly addressing circumcision, but that he was addressing the larger picture of grace vs. legalism, now you're going to tell me, "no, he wasn't talking about grace vs. legalism, he was specifically addressing circumcision"?
How am I supposed to deal with that??
:)
<< Home
