ECT MAD interp flaw
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
IP is now silent about his LIE. Go figure. Liars don't like to admit their lies they just want to keep their story alive any way that they can.
IP, you're a shameful disgrace of a "Christian". Misquoting scripture for YOUR own end and then trying to sweep it under the rug.
IP, you're a shameful disgrace of a "Christian". Misquoting scripture for YOUR own end and then trying to sweep it under the rug.
Interplanner
Well-known member
??? What's this about my friend? There always needs to be a detail to go along with a blanket statement, you know. Do you mean the expression 'the righteousness of God'? Well, the last thing Danoh said about it was totally off. The Law and Prophets testifying to the righteousness of God is a happy thing. It is not about the failure of man. If it was, it would have said the L&P testify to the unrighteousness of men. I've lost track how many times the expression in is Isaiah, but it becomes synonymous with the Servant. This is no surprise as THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS is Jer's name for Christ.
Right Divider
Body part
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119182-MAD-interp-flaw&p=4788101&viewfull=1#post4788101
It's about your dishonest quoting of scripture to try to support your "story".
The point that Paul was making was NOT that the righteousness of God was but now revealed, but that the righteousness of God WITHOUT THE LAW was BUT NOW revealed.
Or do you believe that the righteousness of God was never revealed before?
That would make you either dishonest or dumb.
In Romans 1-3, the Apostle Paul goes from asserting the righteousness of God being revealed in the Gospel of Christ that God is offering men; he goes from that, into a contrast between that, and the wrath of God in His righteousness that men actually deserve, and why.
He deals with how the Gentile came to be deserving of the wrath of God in His righteousness.
He then deals with how the so called Jew came to be deserving of God's wrath in His righteousness.
He finds them both guilty - that all have sinned; all have come short of the glory of God.
Later, in Romans 5, he will elaborate further on the real problem - that man's actual problem is that he is in Adam.
Many failing to make this connection...end up erroneously concluding that Paul is preaching salvation by works, say, in Romans 2.
Anyway, Paul then returns to the issue he began with - the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel of Christ.
Which is the issue of God's offer of grace and peace in His righteousness now, this side of the Cross.
That is; based on His having poured out His wrath on His Own Son, in His grace out of His mercy in His righteousness.
In Paul's use of the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" it is obvious that more than just the Law of Moses had been a witness of the righteousness of God in His wrath.
Genesis, for example, (which is where Paul's account of how the Gentiles came to be without hope, and without God in the world is found), is not the Law.
Anyway, what Paul is doing is contrasting the righteousness of God in His wrath that the Law and the Prophets have proven man is deservng of, he is contrasting between that and the grace and peace of God that God in His righteousness is now offering men in the gospel of Christ.
How is that possible?
Based on the fact of His having poured out His wrath in His grace on His Son.
His impending wrath in His righteousness having been fully satisfied in His Son's sacrifice as to those who believe; who are therefore in the Body.
What Romans 1-3 (together with many, many understandings Paul elabirates further on, in Romans 4-8) is, is a template of how to present the gospel of Christ.
Buit into all that, is an intended, resulting understanding, of man's soul.
Understanding man's actual predicament at its' very core from all that, you then first present the wrath that man is worthy of, and then when the flames are nice and hot; you present the offer of God's grace and His peace that His Son's fully paid sacrifice has made possible.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's a good summary. Paul already concluded that by 3:20. 3:21 starts with the total contrast. If it meant to continue 3:20, it would have started 'This is why...' or 'Therefore...' That would be the antecedent of the testifying. So there are not several gospels. There is one unified Bible. And yes, Christ did take on the wrath of God, but wrath in ch 1 meant the degradation of society because of v24, 26, 28. So v17 did not mean wrath, instead, the person 'righteous by faith will live.' It is good news.
Back to the question: did L&P in 3:21 mean the sinfulness of man? No. The expression is always about an act that saves. This time it is that it saves from that sinfulness. Actually, the debt of it.
As you may know, it was mind-blowing for Luther when he realized that the righteousness of God was meant as a happy thing about God on our side. He grew up thinking it was God's wrath.
He has already dealt with the various therefores and is merely returning to the issue he began with in chapter one - the gospel of Christ - Christ ALONE for righteousness.
The Law and the Prophets having proven that that righteousness that God had offered prior to His Son's sacrifice - all - have come short of meeting.
By the way, "well wait a minute; what about those who had been faithful back then;" right?
No problem - " the forbearance of God" as He looked to the Son's coming sacrifice.
Romans is one heck of a chockful of content epistle!
No doubt about it, bro.
You sure don't like, what you consider being the "non-elect" do ya? Which refers to all non-Calvinists, correct?
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's really good to hear you on solid ground instead of the disorder known as MAD.
re forebearance.
That wasn't referring to resolving whether OT believers were justified; they were. They were the ones who looked to the coming sacrifice. The expression here is actually 'winked at' which the lexicons say is not an approval as it might be in romantic situations now; it was a mental note that 'I'm not doing anything about it right now but I will at the right time.' That is why he goes on about how the previous generations were not really punished as they should be (he must mean of course after the deluge). And why the Gospel is both just and provides justification from sin. So HERE is where you can say it is an event of wrath. But I don't think so in ch 1's string of 'gave overs'. That, like Shaeffer in DEATH IN THE CITY, is about the misery of life without the blessings of God's commands.
Right Divider
Body part
I would love to see some scriptural proof of that.
Yep, the ALMOST Acts 28 Position VERY FEW Mads hold WITHIN Mad - and in words by the founder of THE Acts 28 Position itself; Charles Welch himself, lol.
I knew you guys had strayed from how Mid-Acts studies such things out :chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
How about you quit broad-brushing here? Or are you looking for future in politics?
Lol; it's always about personalities and one sided finger pointing with you Legalist Mads..
God forbid anyone point out anything to any of you :chuckle:
Typical of the Legalist; you yell "divisive!" and "traitor!"
You have made a joke of Mad all over TOL.
Right Divider
Body part
When did legalism enter the room?
Apparantly when some of you adopted Mad and turned the Grace Mad that liberates, into your Legalist Mad.
Apparantly, way before TOL even existed.
Have seen this sort of thing within Mad for many years now.
Right Divider
Body part
I have no idea what you are talking about and still think that you need to quit trying to falsely accuse "you guys" of stuff that YOU think "you guys" believe.
musterion
Well-known member
Overreact much?