Jump to content
Peter T Chattaway

God's Not Dead 2

Recommended Posts

Attica   
On April 20, 2016 at 0:40 AM, Peter T Chattaway said:

And *then* Paul rattles off a whole list of *other* sins -- including gossip! -- that deserve "death". The thrust of the entire passage is that Paul starts by listing some practices that he knows his Jewish-Christian readers already think of as something that Those People commit, and then he lists some practices that he knows his readers commit and says *those* practices deserve *death* -- and then he segues right into Romans 2, where he says his readers have no basis for passing judgment on other people, for in doing so they judge themselves and show contempt for the riches of God's kindness, tolerance and patience.

To skip right from the "shameful lusts" verse to the "death" verse without acknowledging all the verses in between, in which Paul turns his finger around and points at Us instead of Them, is just wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Right.  Gotchya.  

We were coming at the question from different angles.  

But actually, I think we've had a similar discussion about this text on here previously???  I do think that what I was saying about "wrath" does fit with what you are saying.  It's part of Paul flipping the script.  They were saying that "those guys deserve God's retribution", and Paul more or less says, "what then about you.  If they deserve it so do you.  But that's not how these things work because God rains his love on all equally and thus "wrath" is giving us over, but he saves us from "wrath" (in the sense of giving over) when we follow him (and thus we aren't given over), and that means that you should follow.  Don't be so quick to throw your desire for retribution on others when you should be looking at yourself.  But even when you do go astray God can eventually use that as a means for a blessing in his grace."

Or something like that.

So then, ironically, that guy's interpretation could very well be coming from the kind of a heart, or attitude, that Paul was warning against.

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attica wrote:
: But actually, I think we've had a similar discussion about this text on here previously??? 

Possibly. Coming to terms with this passage was a *huge* part of a spiritual crisis I went through about 20 years ago, and it informs many of my thoughts about other things now.

: So then, ironically, that guy's interpretation could very well be coming from the kind of a heart, or attitude, that Paul was warning against.

Exactly. He's utterly missed the point of the passage. He sees only what he wants to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Attica   
On April 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter T Chattaway said:

Coming to terms with this passage was a *huge* part of a spiritual crisis I went through about 20 years ago

Yeah, I can see that.  My understanding of Romans here and in other (related) places, is quite different than the Christianity I had been around for a number of years.  To use philosophical language, it has put certain aspects of the Christian faith on a different axiom for me, whereby a lot of other understandings are shifted flowing out of that.

I mean for example, a new interpretation of what is going on in that text can give a whole new view of 

 

Romans 5:9 New International Version (NIV)

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!

 

I think that Paul is talking in context of wrath as a "giving over" mentioned earlier in Romans (why would he change the context without any indication when it is related to the earlier text), and thus  in regards to the idea that we shouldn't be too quick to judge as we can and have had this happen to us.  It then utterly changes Romans 5:9 to being saved from the process of "being given over" by clinging to and following Christ who helps us.  In other words, a Christian may be justified but that doesn't necessarily mean that at justification they are saved from "wrath", at least according to the new axiom of the understanding wrath in Romans 5:9 9 (we can still be "given over" in fact it happens all of the time.)

But then this also changes ones understanding of the cross.  It works to help deflate the idea that the cross was to appease God's wrath (penal substitution), because wrath isn't then understood in that context, and a Christian can still be under it (again according to the different conception of it as a giving over) so it obviously hasn't actual been "appeased" in any attempt at a penal substitution view of Paul.  Thus penal substitution begins to make even less sense and becomes more repulsive.

So, right there I've pretty much walked away from the particular orthodoxy which he would likely hold to.  It all unravels.

 

On April 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter T Chattaway said:

Exactly. He's utterly missed the point of the passage. He sees only what he wants to see.

Right.  He possibly (just for the sake of conversation I don't know and can't really judge) has been "given over" (wrath) in the sense that he has been allowed to follow something of his own paths with whatever consequences that would entail.  One consequence probably being a hardness towards those others, and from this that text in the Bible mirroring back what he wants to see to at least some extent. Some of it, or even most of it, could also simply be his theological training.  I've known some pastors who have hated certain things that they taught, bt have done so anyways, thinking that it was the truth.

 

Edited by Attica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×