Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For reasons she neither understands nor cares to figure out, June has found herself reading and re-reading the book of Romans, as of late. Therein, June has learned a few things, not the least of which how Paul talks about 'the Law.' It would appear to the little heathen (who barely remembers her days of actually studying theology) that there is a distinction made between the 'old Law' or covenant, and the new. If June is reading correctly, (which of course could admittedly be a real long shot) then what she seems to be gleaning is the very fact that with Christ's death and resurrection, the 'old ways' were eradicated. Adherence to the Law would thus appear to become redefined. Interesting. Paul even goes so far as to point out that it is not as 'black and white' as a 'do or do not' contract; but rather, is much more broadly defined against the backdrop of the resurrected Jesus Christ.
Paul also has a thing or two to say about how believers should interact with one another, along with how they should engage with nonbelievers. This particularly caught June's attention, as she found her 'just heathen June self' sitting there on more than one occasion saying to herself "Well I'll be!"
So here's June's question/questions:
What's the deal with legalism? (Fundamentalism, literalism?) June wonders where that comes from, or even how it is possible. What's the deal with the OT 'all or none/black and white' thinking that she reads on these forums so often that would tend to contradict most of what she reads in most of the NT, but lately, in Romans, in particular? June finds it somewhat compelling that she reads one thing here, another there. June finds it especially compelling that there is one attitude conveyed here, yet another there. June can certainly understand how an atheist could become confused. -If they were a dumb atheist. June hopes that she is not, but then again, does one ever really know? Paul advises against arrogance, so June's more inclined to side with that notion for the time being. --It would seem to make so much better sense, along with the fact that humility and humbleness are things June has always tended to value, endorse, and at least attempt to uphold. Arrogance always bothered June, as it so clearly spoke to such vast insecurity in those who so adamantly needed to be 'right.' June doesn't need to be right. For the time being, she would simply like to understand, and thus needs a bit of clarification.
So help June out here: How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what she reads here, versus what she reads in the book that so many of you are so fond of quoting? How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what accounts for such vast interpretations of what is so clearly stated as regards the 'law' and how it should be executed (lived out) among believers? How should June reconcile the underlying attitude that Paul conveys by his insight, acceptance, and understanding of human nature in the aftermath of his own conversion, versus what June reads on the Christianity forum that would appear to speak to less than a lovingly accepting attitude towards others? (Fellow believers, or otherwise.) Who should June listen to and why all the discrepancies? Lastly, what accounts for the fact that -more often than not- June can't help but wonder: Are we all reading the same bible?
Disclaimer: June is asking all of the above questions out of a sincere interest in order to better understand, and to possibly gain some insight as to what and why others believe as they do. June is fully aware of the fact that she is reading Romans as a nonbeliever. -But a nonbeliever who is not totally ignorant and clueless. And hopefully neither arrogant, or unkind.
The Alan understands the way some find a large difference in the way the Law is pushed in some parts of the bible and the way it seems all so 'over" in the next part of the Bible.
What Alan has learned is that Paul talks about how the law was a school teacher, and that once Alan had grown and he is no longer in school the school teacher has no authority over Alan.
Alan's 3rd grade teacher for a while had fully authority over Alan.
But once Alan grew and became a man, the authority of that same 3rd grade teacher had completely ended.
For Alan to try to return to that same 3rd grade teachers class and try once again to be under that teacher's authority would be foolish.
For reasons she neither understands nor cares to figure out, June has found herself reading and re-reading the book of Romans, as of late. Therein, June has learned a few things, not the least of which how Paul talks about 'the Law.' It would appear to the little heathen (who barely remembers her days of actually studying theology) that there is a distinction made between the 'old Law' or covenant, and the new. If June is reading correctly, (which of course could admittedly be a real long shot) then what she seems to be gleaning is the very fact that with Christ's death and resurrection, the 'old ways' were eradicated. Adherence to the Law would thus appear to become redefined. Interesting. Paul even goes so far as to point out that it is not as 'black and white' as a 'do or do not' contract; but rather, is much more broadly defined against the backdrop of the resurrected Jesus Christ.
Paul also has a thing or two to say about how believers should interact with one another, along with how they should engage with nonbelievers. This particularly caught June's attention, as she found her 'just heathen June self' sitting there on more than one occasion saying to herself "Well I'll be!"
So here's June's question/questions:
What's the deal with legalism? (Fundamentalism, literalism?) June wonders where that comes from, or even how it is possible. What's the deal with the OT 'all or none/black and white' thinking that she reads on these forums so often that would tend to contradict most of what she reads in most of the NT, but lately, in Romans, in particular? June finds it somewhat compelling that she reads one thing here, another there. June finds it especially compelling that there is one attitude conveyed here, yet another there. June can certainly understand how an atheist could become confused. -If they were a dumb atheist. June hopes that she is not, but then again, does one ever really know? Paul advises against arrogance, so June's more inclined to side with that notion for the time being. --It would seem to make so much better sense, along with the fact that humility and humbleness are things June has always tended to value, endorse, and at least attempt to uphold. Arrogance always bothered June, as it so clearly spoke to such vast insecurity in those who so adamantly needed to be 'right.' June doesn't need to be right. For the time being, she would simply like to understand, and thus needs a bit of clarification.
So help June out here: How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what she reads here, versus what she reads in the book that so many of you are so fond of quoting? How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what accounts for such vast interpretations of what is so clearly stated as regards the 'law' and how it should be executed (lived out) among believers? How should June reconcile the underlying attitude that Paul conveys by his insight, acceptance, and understanding of human nature in the aftermath of his own conversion, versus what June reads on the Christianity forum that would appear to speak to less than a lovingly accepting attitude towards others? (Fellow believers, or otherwise.) Who should June listen to and why all the discrepancies? Lastly, what accounts for the fact that -more often than not- June can't help but wonder: Are we all reading the same bible?
Disclaimer: June is asking all of the above questions out of a sincere interest in order to better understand, and to possibly gain some insight as to what and why others believe as they do. June is fully aware of the fact that she is reading Romans as a nonbeliever. -But a nonbeliever who is not totally ignorant and clueless. And hopefully neither arrogant, or unkind.
Thanks in advance to those who respond!
Take gentle care.
June should listen to God and no one else. Only God can give you the true revelation you desire from His Word. The bible is nothing more than the simple faith message or the "milk" of the Gospel...most Christians have not moved past it and cling to it for life. What they don't realize is there is so much more to God than one can find in the bible. Only the "solid food" of the Gospel which is given by God and only God can give you true spiritual insight and answer your hearfelt questions...these are the hidden mysteries that Paul speaks of in Corinthians. Keep searching...that is what God wants us to do in order to truly find Him.
Christy thinks June isn't as big a "heathen" as she claims to be.
For reasons she neither understands nor cares to figure out, June has found herself reading and re-reading the book of Romans, as of late. Therein, June has learned a few things, not the least of which how Paul talks about 'the Law.' It would appear to the little heathen (who barely remembers her days of actually studying theology) that there is a distinction made between the 'old Law' or covenant, and the new. If June is reading correctly, (which of course could admittedly be a real long shot) then what she seems to be gleaning is the very fact that with Christ's death and resurrection, the 'old ways' were eradicated. Adherence to the Law would thus appear to become redefined. Interesting. Paul even goes so far as to point out that it is not as 'black and white' as a 'do or do not' contract; but rather, is much more broadly defined against the backdrop of the resurrected Jesus Christ.
Paul also has a thing or two to say about how believers should interact with one another, along with how they should engage with nonbelievers. This particularly caught June's attention, as she found her 'just heathen June self' sitting there on more than one occasion saying to herself "Well I'll be!"
So here's June's question/questions:
What's the deal with legalism? (Fundamentalism, literalism?) June wonders where that comes from, or even how it is possible. What's the deal with the OT 'all or none/black and white' thinking that she reads on these forums so often that would tend to contradict most of what she reads in most of the NT, but lately, in Romans, in particular? June finds it somewhat compelling that she reads one thing here, another there. June finds it especially compelling that there is one attitude conveyed here, yet another there. June can certainly understand how an atheist could become confused. -If they were a dumb atheist. June hopes that she is not, but then again, does one ever really know? Paul advises against arrogance, so June's more inclined to side with that notion for the time being. --It would seem to make so much better sense, along with the fact that humility and humbleness are things June has always tended to value, endorse, and at least attempt to uphold. Arrogance always bothered June, as it so clearly spoke to such vast insecurity in those who so adamantly needed to be 'right.' June doesn't need to be right. For the time being, she would simply like to understand, and thus needs a bit of clarification.
So help June out here: How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what she reads here, versus what she reads in the book that so many of you are so fond of quoting? How should June reconcile in her little heathen mind what accounts for such vast interpretations of what is so clearly stated as regards the 'law' and how it should be executed (lived out) among believers? How should June reconcile the underlying attitude that Paul conveys by his insight, acceptance, and understanding of human nature in the aftermath of his own conversion, versus what June reads on the Christianity forum that would appear to speak to less than a lovingly accepting attitude towards others? (Fellow believers, or otherwise.) Who should June listen to and why all the discrepancies? Lastly, what accounts for the fact that -more often than not- June can't help but wonder: Are we all reading the same bible?
Disclaimer: June is asking all of the above questions out of a sincere interest in order to better understand, and to possibly gain some insight as to what and why others believe as they do. June is fully aware of the fact that she is reading Romans as a nonbeliever. -But a nonbeliever who is not totally ignorant and clueless. And hopefully neither arrogant, or unkind.
Thanks in advance to those who respond!
Take gentle care.
No we don't all read the same bible's.
Paul was speaking to Roman's not the whole world in the letter to the Roman's. He was speaking in terms and concepts that they could relate, according to their habits, and customs.
Not that there isn't pearls of wisdom that we can glean from Roman's, but one must be in league with the Holy Spirit in order to get the meat of the meanings.
Roman's is clearly the most over-read, and mis interpretted book of the New Testament.
The Evan churches have done a remarkable job of confusing the word's of Christ with the words of Paul.
For reasons she neither understands nor cares to figure out, June has found herself reading and re-reading the book of Romans, as of late. Therein, June has learned a few things, not the least of which how Paul talks about 'the Law.' It would ................
Disclaimer: June is asking all of the above questions out of a sincere interest in order to better understand, and to possibly gain some insight as to what and why others believe as they do. June is fully aware of the fact that she is reading Romans as a nonbeliever. -But a nonbeliever who is not totally ignorant and clueless. And hopefully neither arrogant, or unkind.
Thanks in advance to those who respond!
Take gentle care.
No June find a good teacher, biggest mistake you can do is think you can do it on your own with just God, that is not even scriptural!
I wasn't always a fundamentalist infact I couldn't stand them but what I did notice was they were the most adamant about truth when other Christian sects were wishy washy, fundies witness to people, go out on the streets to tell the truth. I mean if hell does exist wouldn't it be a crime if we didn't? Fundamentalist have a higher view of God, fundies defend the gospel better than the other sects- they have the best apologetics and a great history that's not to say we are perfect and not without faults because we do have many but lesser than other sects imo.
That's right June when Jesus came, He fulfilled the laws, the "old ways"NOT LAWS were done away with but Jesus said,
(Matthew 5:17) 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
What was eliminated was work righteousness (doing works to earn your way into heaven) The Mosaic laws were used in the wrong manner, the law was twisted by the pharisees and Saducees forcing Jews to use the laws in obtaining salvation but in actuality the Law was there to show us that it was impossible for us to keep the laws let alone obtaining salvation and that we were in desperate need of a savior which is Jesus.
The Apostle Paul taught through his own experiences, trial and error on dealing believers and non believers. It's a daily struggle for us Christians in this respect which is what I admired with Apostle Paul on how he adjusted, how he battled, how he rebuked, how he humbled himself allowed the Holy Spirit to fulfill His role in the believer and we read the Corinthian church which he loved, did so much for, sacrificed much for turned against him and how it ripped his heart to shreds.
As far as taking the bible literally. How else do we take it? Do we not take each other literally? and if God created speech and language structure how else will He communicate with us if not literally?
Last edited by Fundamentalist; 10-20-2009 at 08:42 AM..
No June find a good teacher, biggest mistake you can do is think you can do it on your own with just God, that is not even scriptural!
Matthew 23:8-12 " 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
No June find a good teacher, biggest mistake you can do is think you can do it on your own with just God, that is not even scriptural!
So...you don't believe that GOD AND ONLY GOD can reaveal the truth to us? You believe some quasi biblical teacher has more insight into the truth of God than GOD HIMSELF?
The Alan understands the way some find a large difference in the way the Law is pushed in some parts of the bible and the way it seems all so 'over" in the next part of the Bible.
What Alan has learned is that Paul talks about how the law was a school teacher, and that once Alan had grown and he is no longer in school the school teacher has no authority over Alan.
Alan's 3rd grade teacher for a while had fully authority over Alan.
But once Alan grew and became a man, the authority of that same 3rd grade teacher had completely ended.
For Alan to try to return to that same 3rd grade teachers class and try once again to be under that teacher's authority would be foolish.
June thanks The Alan for his Alan answer.
This gives the June something to think about and ponder within the context that The Alan framed it.
With no intention of 'thumping June over the head with my bible or gagging her with crammed bible verses, here is my two cents..
The law and the prophets were all for the preparation of the coming of the Messiah to save the people from having to work for their forgiveness of their sins..The law was strict legalism which demanded this or that in order to bring the people out of their immoral and savage ways..The people of that time were worshipping many different Gods for many reasons..They didn't understand that one God was capable of tending all of their needs.
The 10 commandments are laws of morality, to prepare them for the messiah who would further teach them about the love of God, not the hateful, vindictive God they thought He was.
Christ fulfilled or ended the law with His death on the cross, and with that we were given His spirit within us to continue to guide, instruct and allow others to see Him through us..
In other words His spirit feeds us the "meat" that man alone, scripture alone cannot..
JMHO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
