Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Romans 2

What can be known about God is plain.

Therefore you have no excuse whoever you are when you judge
others.  for in passsing judgment on another you condemn
yourself because you the judge are doing the very same things .
 You say We know that God's judgment on those who do such things
is in accordance with truth.  Do you imagine whoever you are
that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them
yourself you will escape the judgment of God.  Or do you despise
the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?  Do
you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to
repentance. 



When the Gentiles who do not possess the law do instinctively
what the law requires these, though not having the law are a law
to themselves.  They show that what the law requires is written
on their hearts to which their own conscience also bears witness.



But if you call yourself a Jew( or Christian) and rely on the
law(or Bible) and boast of your relation to God and know his will
and determine what is best because your are instructed in the
law(or Bible) and if you are sure that you are a guide to the
blind, a light to those who are in darkness a corrector to the
foolish, a teacher of children having in the law(or Bible) the
embodiment of knowledge and truth you then that teach others,
will you not teach yourself?


Any desire to exegete this passage?

    My first contention against your .1 is that you equate the law with the
    Bible.  They are not one and the same. 

Re: Note 869.1                          
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                  

Romans 2

What can be known about God is plain.

>>Therefore you have no excuse whoever you are when you judge
>>others.  for in passsing judgment on another you condemn
>>yourself because you the judge are doing the very same things .
>> You say We know that God's judgment on those who do such things
>>is in accordance with truth.  Do you imagine whoever you are
>>that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them
>>yourself you will escape the judgment of God.  Or do you despise
>>the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?  Do
>>you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to
>>repentance. 

First, I find it amazing Patricia, that a few verses before at the end of Romans
1, Paul passes judgement on the conduct of those who exchange the natural
function of a man for the unnatural affection of a man.  
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in
their lust one toward another; mem with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which is due them."

I find it interesting Patricia, that you using Romans 2 as a measuring stick
is used in context of Pauls condemnation of homosexuality.  I bring this up
only to spur conversation, that's all.  If group A is judged by Paul as 
unnatural, then group B (Christians I assume) who practice the same behavior
are as guilty for judging, yet doing the same.  How does this logic fit into
a liberal way of thinking if group A is, in a liberals viewpoint, doing 
nothing wrong?

>>But if you call yourself a Jew( or Christian) and rely on the
>>law(or Bible) and boast of your relation to God and know his will
>>and determine what is best because your are instructed in the
>>law(or Bible) and if you are sure that you are a guide to the
>>blind, a light to those who are in darkness a corrector to the
>>foolish, a teacher of children having in the law(or Bible) the
>>embodiment of knowledge and truth you then that teach others,
>>will you not teach yourself?

Let's touch on the law aspect first.  As you read chapters 3 and 4, (Actually
through 7), you will notice that Paul spends an insurmountable portion 
explaining that justification is not by the law, but by faith.  See chapters
3 and 4 where he makes the argument that Abraham believed and it was 
accredited to him as righteousness.   Also in Romans 10, Paul refers to the 
law as a stumblingblock.  In the context of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews
(These three churches had similar problems), He is NOT 
referring to the Bible as the law.  He is referring to the Mosaic law 
which was brought down by Moses to the nation of Israel.  So, as .2 implys,
The Law, as described in Romans 2 cannot be used synonymously with the whole
Bible.  Paul clearly states his position in Galatians 3, "For Christ has 
removed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.  For it
is written, 'cursed be a man who hangs from a tree'".

The law (Mosaic) was written for many reasons, not just as a guide for the Jews
tolive by.  The main ones I see are.

A. Written to reveal to us how sinful we really are.  

B. The sacrificial system of animal sacrifices was a picture of what Jesus 
did on the cross.  This is why he is called the lamb of God.

I don't look at myself as a guide to lead the blind and the foolish, for I 
am a fool myself.  I look at myself as one beggar showing another beggar where 
the bread is!   

-Jack

I'll take a stab at it a little later.

    The law, as Paul describes it in Romans, was not given so that one
    could find salvation, but it was given so that each individual could
    judge just how far away from God their unrighteous living has separated
    themselves.
    
    Paul also goes further in Romans detailing, since we are saved by
    grace, can we ignore the law or blatantly sin?  In the Greek he
    emphatically answers NO!, since Christ died for us and we have an
    inheritance with Christ as believers in Eternal Life, we should
    separate ourselves as much as possible from our sin nature and emulate
    Christ.
    
    The other point he consistently makes, and I try to drill it in my Boys
    5th & 6th grade SS Class is that "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner."  As
    christians, if we see fellow christians in sin, we should inform them
    of their sin, but lovingly attempt to bring them back into the Joy
    of their Salvation with repentance, forgiveness and restoration.  Paul
    admonishes in Galatians, in the original Greek, not to condemn, but 
    lovingly "inform" a fellow believer of their sin in much the same
    fashion they would want that believer to inform them of their own sin. 

re Note 869.5 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     The other point he consistently makes, and I try to drill it in my Boys
>     5th & 6th grade SS Class is that "Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner."  As
>     christians, if we see fellow christians in sin, we should inform them
>     of their sin, but lovingly attempt to bring them back into the Joy
>     of their Salvation with repentance, forgiveness and restoration.  

        If the only thing "lovingly" about your treatment of sinners
        is attempting to bring them back in, then I question whether
        you really "love the sinner".

        They are whole human beings. To only love them insofar as you
        can convert them is to hate, not love, the person as a whole.

        Bob

    You love inspite of conversion... just like I do you Bob! :-)
    
    
    

    I'm fairly certain Bob loves you, even though it is equally apparent
    that you are just as in need of conversion as he is.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .8
    
    Richard, take a deep breath and find the little smiley face next to the
    statement which says "I don't really know your state of conversion".
    
    

    You attack very good.  You also misrepresent my viewpoints with your
    particular spin very good.  In each case, since you obviously don't
    know the whole picture or context that I was stating my remarks, you
    also leap to conclusions.  
    
    Now, if you ask for clarification, or for life examples, I'd gladly
    give you both.  Love is just not a few, it's an action.  Since you
    didn't bother to look for said action (or purposily chose to ignore
    it), then you are not open to receive me or my opinions, but you have
    pre-judged me with the same prejudgement you falsely accuse me.

re Note 869.10 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     You attack very good.  You also misrepresent my viewpoints with your
>     particular spin very good.  In each case, since you obviously don't
>     know the whole picture or context that I was stating my remarks, you
>     also leap to conclusions.  
  
        To whom are you addressing this?

        Bob

    your .6 against my .5.

    I don't particularly enjoy singling individuals out since some would
    call that being judgemental.

re Note 869.13 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     I don't particularly enjoy singling individuals out since some would
>     call that being judgemental.
  
        There's really nothing wrong with being judgmental about
        particular words and actions;  it may be almost impossible
        not to do so at times.

        Bob

    .14
    
    Bob,  shock horror frozen in state... :-)
    
    Just when is it appropriate to judge?

re Note 869.12 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     your .6 against my .5.
  
        Perhaps you pressed a "hot button" of mine.

        Conservative Christians are fond of saying "hate the sin,
        love the sinner" even while taking hateful actions against
        the sinner.  (A current example of this would be to promote
        laws which allow private discrimination against gays in
        employment.  To specifically allow others to deny a person a
        job -- a necessity of life -- because of what they do in
        their bedroom is a hateful act against the sinner and not
        specifically against the sin.  You might as well pass a law
        making it legal to deny them oxygen.)

        I know nothing about your personal position on this, so
        perhaps it is unfair for me to raise this issue in response
        to something you wrote.  On the other hand, I feel it VERY
        important that when somebody writes "hate the sin, love the
        sinner" they REALLY mean the "love the sinner" as a whole
        human being and not just as an object of conversion.

        Bob

re Note 869.15 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Just when is it appropriate to judge?
  
        Well it certainly is appropriate to judge words and actions
        as necessary to participate in a discussion forum such as a
        notes conference.

        (The context.)

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    You did judge my actions, not once but twice, and you haven't asked me
    what I, in your opinion a conservative christian, have done to
    demonstrate my love towards the sinners (actual examples) although I
    said in my one response I would be happy to do so if asked.  You see,
    Bob, I choose, #1 not to boast, #2, not to be judgemental about
    something I don't know anything about, and #3, express my own opinions 
    only when I see that there could be valued added.  Since you already 
    judged me as not having anything to add to change your prejudice, you 
    already checked me out of the discussion and wish to hammer me as if this is
    the 'Box.
    
    G'Day!
    
    Ron

    RE: .18
    
    Ron.....You are over reacting...really. Spend alittle time in hear
    getting to know the people. Bob is really not a bad guy (little problem
    with the NRA, but we'll fix that).
    
    Marc H.

    .19 <Beau coup grins> :-}
    
    Richard
    

    Maybe I missed something..but this thing about gays being discriminated
    against for jobs,...where did that come from?
    I think it important to note that many different people are
    discriminated against by many different people of different religions.
    It is a hasty generalization to imply that a gay individual
    discriminated against would be from a Christian.  Unless your talking
    about a gay being discriminated against by a church trying to hire
    somebody.  
    
    -Jack

    During a trip yesterday, I had the chance to read the Roman letter.
    Lots of difficult passages.....does anyone have any background
    on what was happening to the romans that predated Pauls letter?
    
    Marc H.

Note 91.3453                  Christianity and Gays                 3453 of 3464
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     17 lines  14-MAR-1994 11:45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This fits better here.  It is Paul's definition of life in slavery to
    sin found in Romans.
    
    According to Paul, Sin is singular.  It is not specific acts but it is
    a way of living where humanity is turned away from God.  Humanity can
    be either slaves to Sin or obedient to God.  Those who are in Christ
    are freed from slavery to Sin.  This also answers the question of faith
    and works.  Good works proceed naturally from those who are in Christ. 
    We are NOT in Christ because of our Good Works, but we do Good Works
    because we are in Christ.  To the spiritual person, the Person in
    Christ, law is not necessary because what is required is written on our
    hearts.  Divine Love is poured into the hearts of the believer and the
    believer fulfills the whole law by loving thy neighbor as thyself.
    
    I know that persons in Christ can still commit individual acts of
    immorality and be forgiven for individual acts of immorality.  I have
    not figured out yet how that works in Paul's Theology.  Perhaps someone
    can help.
    
    Patricia

Re:  .23

I think that is very good as far as it goes.

   >I know that persons in Christ can still commit individual acts of
   >immorality and be forgiven for individual acts of immorality.  I have
   >not figured out yet how that works in Paul's Theology.  Perhaps someone
   >can help.

Sin is a complex issue.  One aspect is what you mentioned earlier
about the direction of our lives.  Another is what you mention
above, individual choices.

Collis

    Romans 2:14-16
    
    When Gentiles who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law
    requires these, though not having the law are a law to themselves.
    
    They Show that what the law requires is written on their hearts to
    which their own conscience also bears witness and their competing
    thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when according
    to my Gopsel God, through Jesus Christ will judge the secret thoughts
    of all.
    
    

    Romans 2 28-29
    
"    For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly nor is true circumcism
    something external or physical.
    
    Rather a person is a Jew who is one inwardly and real circumcism is a
    matter of the heart.  It is spiritual and not literal.  Such a person
    receives praise not from others but from God."
    
    
    I interpret this to mean that even if a person does not outwardly
    confess a particular faith,  the will of God is written on his/her
    heart, then that person is spiritually a person of Faith.
    
    I know many secular humanists who I consider persons of great faith,
    because of the love for humanity obviously written on their hearts.
    
                       Patricia