actually, paul is saying that we establish the law because the merits of jesus makes us perfect…we are not establishing the law because we are doing so through our own efforts, or abandoning its claims through an experience that obviates the law…we are establishing the law because jesus’ merits are given to us, and we are demonstrating jesus’ life because the HS speaks through us…
You’re reading traditional Protestant systematic soteriology into the passage in Romans 3, and bypassing the entire flow and point of Paul’s arguments, and how the grace of God in Christ impacted his very real on the ground concerns and issues in real time.
There are so many logical fallacies underlying so many of your arguments that I find no reasonable place to start any sort of reasonable, much less comprehensive, rebuttal. A more recent example is your illogical insistence that people must consider every text of the bible–OT and NT–when working out their own salvation, even though you know, as well as everyone in this forum, that belief in a word-by-word transcription of the bible from god to men, as well as the concept of scriptural inerrancy, are utterly untenable propositions. In other words, some of the what one reads in the bible is contradictory, if not just plain wrong, and must be rejected in the interest of sanity, to say nothing of one’s desire for redemption from sin. (And if you need me to provide examples of these contradictions, I suggest that you are not as familiar with your bible as you give yourself credit for.)
Further, even if it could somehow be proved that god cannot lie, as you alluded to in an earlier comment, one must admit that the stories attributed to him have a tendency to be–at the very least–“overly-wrought”, for lack of a better euphemism.
All of which leads me to supsect that you have chosen as your avocation the role of an overly-educated, self-rationalizing internet troll whose only real objective is that of obtaining reactions from more rational people, whether what you are forced to say in order to do accomplish that goal, makes sense or not.
But then again, I can’t read your mind, complex or otherwise, so instead, I’ll tell a brief story.
While out on the golf course Saturday afternoon, I was listening to a ballad by The Faces from their 1971 album “A Nods As Good As A Wink”. The song, “Maybe That’s All You Need”, has an unusual chord progression played on a slide guitar, which I cannot replicate on either my six-string Fender or an acoustic twelve-string Epiphone.
That said, Rod Stewart sings a couple of lines in the song which I could never figure out back in my high school days, so I googled the lyrics last week and realized that they contain a possibly prophetic reference to you, as follows:
"Sit right down if you can spare me a minute
I got a tale that’s bound to break your heart
Concerns my brother, who’s thin and played violin
Got it in his head that an IQ is all you need
He went his way; I couldn’t discover mine
I didn’t worry if I ever saw him again
He’s made a profit while I don’t even own a pocket
And the last I heard he was sitting at the top of the tree
Wait a minute!
Late last night, reading my underground press
Came a knock on the door; thought it was the third world war
[And although] I did not recognize him
I said have a cup of [Sanka], maybe that’s all you need
He said the smell of the city, kid - it’s trying to kill me
My eyes are getting muddy, [man], I’m aging fast
With my kind of music I knew - it wasn’t gonna to be simple
But have a quick listen, kid, maybe that’s all you need."
This is followed by another slide guitar interlude in a more common rock-n-roll chord sequence, then the “smarter” brother’s voice sings:
“Don’t stop; you make me feel much better
Tell me, my brother, do you think that’s all I need?”
So from now on, I’m sure I’ll be thinking of you and your ilk everytime I hear that song, just as I’m reminded of your brand of what I consider to be philosophcial pedantry if someone quotes “Paul nee Saul and who only ever met Jesus in his dreams”, who he talks about “the sound of brass and tinkling cymbals…” or when the self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is supposedly “Christian”, mentions “newly cleansed sows returning to their mire”.
But then again, this comment, as novel and well-considered as it undoubtedly is, will almost certainly be deemed “the opposite of pearls before swine” and is unlikely to ever make it past the comments moderator…
not so…paul was dealing with a type of systematic legalism similar to what luther battled against…some of his statements are directed towards that particular condition…on balance, though, paul is in harmony with the rest of the bible, which clearly shows us that redemption brings us into effective obedience that was unavailable in our pre-born again state…
obedience in our born again state is effective because jesus’ merits, which meet the claims of the law, are given to us…at this point, the law can have no further claim on us because we are shielded from it’s condemnation against sin…we are free from the law because it can no longer condemn us…but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t continue to exist…
jesus didn’t destroy the law, according to his own testimony…but he delivers us from its claims…that’s why his name is called jesus: he saves his people from their sins…he saves us from the unrelenting condemnation of the law against our sinful fallen human nature, in addition to choices that we gradually overcome…the law continues to exist, but in a dormant state…the perfection of jesus covering our lives means there is no condemnation that can stir the law into awakened activity…
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.