ECT glorydaz says that Romans is Written to Unbelievers
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
I see it this way, It was all written to, about, and for Believers, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
And this, in light of the Mystery; as this distinction is vital to the Believers' being properly established in the faith, Rom. 16:25.
In this, it also addresses, within its contents; the issue of the lost, Rom. 5, for example, this too, in light of the Mystery; Eph. 2 for example.
An issue many confuse, just as they confuse establishment in the faith, in their failure to rightly divide, or lay out aright, the Scripture, in light of the Mystery "hid in God," til first made known to the Apostle Paul; and through his "preaching" to others, Titus 1: 2, 3, as well as through his "prophetic writings" - Romans thru Philemon, Rom. 16:25, 26.
His writings were acknowledged by prophets at that time as being "scriptures of the prophets" - as being of the same source, and thus of a weight and authority "as also, the other Scriptures," 2 Peter 3: 15, 16.
Thus, the Apostle Paul's - "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 14:37.
And this, in light of the Mystery; as this distinction is vital to the Believers' being properly established in the faith, Rom. 16:25.
In this, it also addresses, within its contents; the issue of the lost, Rom. 5, for example, this too, in light of the Mystery; Eph. 2 for example.
An issue many confuse, just as they confuse establishment in the faith, in their failure to rightly divide, or lay out aright, the Scripture, in light of the Mystery "hid in God," til first made known to the Apostle Paul; and through his "preaching" to others, Titus 1: 2, 3, as well as through his "prophetic writings" - Romans thru Philemon, Rom. 16:25, 26.
His writings were acknowledged by prophets at that time as being "scriptures of the prophets" - as being of the same source, and thus of a weight and authority "as also, the other Scriptures," 2 Peter 3: 15, 16.
Thus, the Apostle Paul's - "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 14:37.
oatmeal
Well-known member
That is exactly what I said.
Yet, who would benefit most from reading and doing the instructions and admonition in Romans 10:9-10?
a. the unsaved, ie, Judeans and Gentiles
b. the saved, ie, the church of God
c. both would benefit but in different ways
d. other _______________
If there are no instructions given by God to the unsaved on how to receive salvation, then salvation would be impossible to acquire.
However, it is clearly God's will that not only all men become saved, but likewise come to the knowledge of the truth. I Timothy 2:4
Without instructions to the unbeliever as to how to become saved, God's will cannot be done.
If it is impossible to tell someone how to become saved, then the subject or goal of salvation is of no value to anyone. If we cannot be saved by the knowledge of the truth, then it is all a lie
Arsenios
Well-known member
You are doubtless correct, GD... Yet the question was "Who was it written to? And for what?" And the question was not "To whom have we given it, and for what?"
We are in a largely, though less so these days, LITERATE population, and printing presses are active, if not surpassed these post-modern days with digital media... So we have slipped into a faith mode that seeks to preach the Gospel by handing out Bibles... But this was not the case for those writing them. All of Paul's epistles were written TO the various Churches, in Rome, in Corinth, in Thessalonica, etc... And they were written FOR them, and were so inspired as to be included in the Sacred Writings of the Canon of Scripture, hand scripted from generation to generation for fifteen hundred years... No small matter...
The Gospels - at least the first three, were written more for beginners in the Faith, but propagation was by reading aloud INSIDE the Churches, and they were very precious items indeed... So the Gospels were HEARD by hearers not reading them, and the culture was oral, and reading and writing were for the rich...
But the Bible is the written that was written FOR the Church...
It was written BY the holy ones IN the Church...
And it was interpreted BY the Church FOR the Church...
Even today, when a commentary is written ABOUT the Bible, we do not look OUTSIDE the Christian Faith for commentators...
My personal opinion is that the usage of the printed Bible as a free hand-out instead of preaching (a la Gideon's) cheapens the Holy Words of this Sacred Tome... It should not be approached outside the worshiping community in which it lives, and then only in prayer and worship...
This idea that because Bibles are not printed and cheap we can convert people to the Christian Faith by passing them out is running into the reality wall... The places where it is most successful is those where persecutions of Christians is greatest, and THAT field is fecund for any seed of encouragement...
Arsenios
You need to read John 20:30-31 (NIV) to see WHY the written word is here.
That's a pretty ORTHODOX view of it Arsenios, but far from accurate. I read this AFTER my last post here but the same answer applies.
John 20:30-31 (NIV)
Let's try to stay with the updated NC model and not bring in the obsolete OC teachings. This is Christianity, NOT Judeo Christianity.
Arsenios
Well-known member
I will leave the modelling to you - But the question remains, in terms of authoritarial intent: Who did the author writing these Holy Words write them for and to whom were they given as they were written? Calling this Judeo-Christianity is not responsive...
The Christian Bible was written to Christians for Christians...
John 20:31 is written for enquirers who have been called in Spiritual encounters - And for those receiving them...
Arsenios
Last edited:
Yes.
The NT was written for ANYONE who wanted to know about the true Messiah. Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel but His message was NOT exclusive to them as is clearly seen in His words to minister to ALL nations.
I said DON'T call it Judeo-Christianity, because it is NOT. Peter and Paul spoke against this incorporation of Judaism into the NT church.
Arsenios
Well-known member
OK - Which means that it was not written for those who did NOT want to know about the true Messiah...
And the ONLY group that did want to know was the Church...
I mean, it is not like they had printing presses, a literate culture, and the Gideon Society leaving off free Bibles at all the local inns... Bibles were not hand-scripted and passed out to the Jews... They were ONLY made for the Church...
He commanded His Apostles to disciple all the nations, and this they did, and all save John found martyrdom in that effort, including Peter and Paul in Rome...
Forgive me - I was unaware that I had done so, and would not do so unless I mis-spoke... I will not call whatever IT is anthing that even rhymes with Judeo-Christianith!
The Faith was given to the Jews, and many of them believed wrongly that one must first be a Jew in order to become a Christian... But the Jews rejected the Cornerstone, and the Law was to be replaced by a righteousness which exceeded the Law... Precise and exacting obedience to the Commandments of Christ given to His Apostles was still the Way of Discipleship, for this observance is life transforming is one believes... But Christ gave Grace, and the Law, which had served the Jews to prepare for Grace, was supplanted...
The actual sequence was not the incorporation of Judaism into the NT Church, but the incorporation of the NT Church into Judaism, because THAT was its birthplace... But a great deal of the structure and practices of Judaic worship WAS incorporated into the worship of the Church... Liturgical chanting, the Old Testament readings, the Psalms, and on and on... If one knew both, one would see the older in the newer...
But the NT was written to and for the Church... And in those days, if you wanted to know about Christ, you went to the Church to find out... You did not read your Gideon's free Bible...
Arsenios
Being open to know and knowing is NOT the same. The first is NOT a confessed believer.
Nope, many people wanted to know, including the many He fed with His miraculous meals. They did NOT all believe. Jesus didn't have to tell believers to believe in Him if they already did.
Yes, in the OT that may have been the norm, but Jesus knew them so obviously anyone who studied and wanted to know could. That is obviously not the point which you are now equivocating on.
No He commanded them to MAKE disciples and to preach the gospel.
Matt 28:19 (NIV) Mark 16:15 (NIV)
Being facetious doesn't really help.
What faith? Jesus brought the NC which many many Jews denied and refused to accept. The faith of the OT is not the same as the faith of the NT, however faith in God IS.
No sorry, Judaism was the first thing to effect the NT church. I suggest you read Paul's account of that in Gal 2 (NIV)
NOT what John 20:31 (NIV) states. Again facetiousness does nothing to further your opinion.
Arsenios
Well-known member
And Christ wrote nothing... And He told His disciples to follow Him...
It was the norm in the NT Church as well...
The verb is 'to disciple', from the same noun 'disciple'... The 'observe', if you go to your Strong's, actually means to obey with exact precision... It results in the dismantling of the Old Man... The mortification of the flesh...
To disciple is to make disciples after a manner of speaking, and either is something done TO the disciple who willingly is obedient... Seal Team 6 training is a light and modest version of this... Paul compared it to an athletic competition... The prize here is God...
A little levity levitates the whole lump!
Actually, the Faith of both is the same [see Heb 11] - The prize differs... "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand: Be ye repenting and be ye baptized!"
The structures of the two liturgies and the chanting are parallel...
Arsenios
Yes...POINT?
Are you going to make a point?
The verb is mathēteúō, and it's etymology is mathētḗs. The command is still what it is, and your analogies don't really fit, to be quite honest.
Yes Paul did, and that is the comparison, NOT a Navy Seal who is trained to kill.
I know what a disciple is, what I don't know is your point. All you're doing here is muddying the waters.
We are NOT amused.
Sorry, but the faith in obeying the OC laws was shown to be useless and non-productive, which is why God had already planned for the NC. Man could not be righteous under the OC, but under the NC, accepting Jesus as our savior and Him becoming our righteousness is what works for God.
You're referring to Judaism vs the RCC now?
Arsenios
Well-known member
Come to think of it, you DO seem a tad on the levitated side in your scathing scorn of my levity...
Have you considered the possibility of a career over at DOC?
[That be Department of Corrections]
Prisoners, you know -
Easier to intimidate...
You will find MUCH more success there...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
You really do need to read Heb 11...
Faith - Some of the OTers had it, and many did not, and those who did raised the dead and parted the seas...
Heb 11...
Really...
"...Of whom the world was not worthy..."
You KNOW this stuff...
C'mon!
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
Thought you would never ask!
In a pre-literate culture without printing presses, the Faith of Christ is spread by those CALLED TO BE APOSTLES...
Do you remember what Paul said of these?
The most wretched...
Appointed as it were unto death?
Remember??
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
Thank you for ceding my point - The verb is "to disciple" and not "to MAKE disciples"...
You ignored what the teaching entails -
Strict and exact and precise obedience to all that Christ commanded them to be DOING...
Gotta keep y'er eyelids open here!
The Navy Seal kills his enemy...
So does the Christian...
One kills an enemy soldier, fairly straightforward...
The other kills the Old Man of Sin, which requires discipleship...
The effort of the first is mild compared to that of the latter...
The latter is killed IN your own flesh, you see...
The former in the flesh of the enemy combatant...
The THINGS I have to explain!
The old wine is good until you drink the new...
Your muddied waters are a Gift...
Arsenios
Actually my point was...it WASN'T.
Sorry I don't know Arseniosnese. Point?
Again I don't speak Arse niosnese. POINT?