Paul's feelings of Idol Meat

The discussion of idol meat was brought up a few class periods ago using Paul's feelings towards it in 1 cor 8. Towards the end of this section of lecture, different areas were hit upon that discuss the end of this chapter when Paul mentions that even though idol meat is just meat cooked in front of a pretty image, if you eating that meat offends someone around you, then it's best you not even eat meat. What I struggled with in my own faith is this same issue concerning "the people around you." I have grown to have this mentality that if my sins are not hurting anyone, then they are okay. Even though I know they are wrong, then it's not that bad of a sin. Or better yet, when I speak every Wednesday to my group, I've had to look back and ask myself if I've acted the same way that I've spoken, or am I worst than what I discussed. Paul's saying that he has no problem with idol meat, but if someone around him takes offense to this, then he would rather be a vegetarian. It has two parts to me: one is that weaking others is a sin and by doing somethings I make others stumble--whether it be culturally acceptable or not, and two is that I need to not look and say that its not hurting anyone else so get over it, but rather I need to put others first in my thoughts.

There is no one righteous, not even one (Romans 3:9-19)

I am writing about these verses because they are very significant to me. When I was younger, I felt I lived a pretty good Christian life, according to what I understood of Christianity at the time. Not only was I pleased with my own behavior, I also thought I was a better person than many others, especially murderers and burglars. However, these verses showed me that I was a sinner, just like everyone else. We are all one in the same and this is what these verses disucss.

These verses are significant because of the straightforward manner in which Paul explains his thoughts. Many Christians try to water down verses such as these so as not to hurt others' feelings. However, one cannot make improvements in his/her Christian life if they do not take verses such as these seriously. We all need to be directly reminded that we sin daily and that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Brother in Christ,
Billy Hardesty

Pauline Theme

I am doing my Pauline research paper on 1Corinthians 12. There is a strong theme in that passage about unity in the church. I am begining to see that that was a theme in most of his writting. He tells people to reject the isolative ways of the Law to be joined with everyone under grace. It is so relevant to our culture today. I know that some scripture is written for us but not to us, however, I really think that Paul's message of unifying the Church can be a direct message to us today. It is amazing how one denomination will cut off another over simple theological differences. Or worse yet, we categorize some people as unclean and they are shunned in the church. Paul went to the gentile/ sinner to bring them in and make them part of the body of Christ. This unity is a clear theme throughout all the Pauline Epistles.

Paul's Hardships

By the looks of the hardship catalogue in 2 Cor, it seems that Paul has gone through more tough times than any other for cause of Christ besides Christ himself. I think we can safely say that Paul took up his cross and followed the example that preceded his ministry. Paul may have suffered some horrifying physical afflictions that we cannot even imagine but I believe his deepest wounds came from his concern for the people his was ministering too. He did not only suffer for Christ but for those who Christ burdened him to love. If anyone of his beloved brothers stumbled he would burn with indignation against the one who made him fall and he would burn with shame as if it would himself who had fallen. I believe some of his sleepless night came from his anxiety for the well being of the people he was responsible for. When can we realize the example of a minister here and seek the well-being others no matter what the cost? When will we selflessly follow the example of Jesus as Paul has done?
Stephen Foust

Christ Centered Theology

Pauline theology is just about as Christ centered as it gets. Today's lecture was just another reminder that nothing the apostle teaches should be viewed as anything other than Christ centered. He seems to always build up an arguement (Gentiles without excuse. Jews don't follow the law. All are not good.) Then he solves the problem by pointing to Christ. He says we recieve the righteousness of God in Christ. Many times it seems we have various problems within the church that we try to solve with the wisdom of this world when the real solution lies in Christ. Jesus is the basis for every aspect of our faith. During the course of this semester, I have been reminded over and over again within Paul's letters to remember that it's all about Jesus.

Christ Centered Theology

Pauline theology is just about as Christ centered as it gets. Today's lecture was just another reminder that nothing the apostle teaches should be viewed as anything other than Christ centered. He seems to always build up an arguement (Gentiles without excuse. Jews don't follow the law. All are not good.) Then he solves the problem by pointing to Christ. He says we recieve the righteousness of God in Christ. Many times it seems we have various problems within the church that we try to solve with the wisdom of this world when the real solution lies in Christ. Jesus is the basis for every aspect of our faith. During the course of this semester, I have been reminded over and over again within Paul's letters to remember that it's all about Jesus.

The Powerless Made Powerful

In Rom 5:6-8, Paul talks of the unjust death of Christ for the sake of sinners. He uses the word “powerless” to describe the sinful state of man. Paul also mentions the absurdity of a man dying for a good man but not a righteous man. He is pointing out that the righteousness that is held is not something to be seen and boasted of as deeds are. Someone can see a “good” man and decide that they are worth dying for, but almost none would die for a righteous man because his standing is given and not earned. However, we receive the righteousness of God through the sacrifice of a good AND righteous man. It’s because of our unworthiness that the miracle of redemption takes place. Christ could have died merely for the good; but since we are of no avail in our good deeds, Christ’s sacrifice is even more miraculous. We are made “powerful” by the redemptive work of Christ (assuming that in our sinful state we are powerless), and we are the recipients of a free gift only to be maintained through faith…“not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Zach Pyron

Some things never change

I was struck today about how society today is not much different from Roman society in the A.D. 50's. In verses 21-25 Paul discusses how men worshipped creation instead of the Creator. The same is true today of many "New Age" religions. Self and nature is worshipped as a god. Nothing really new there. He also talks about unnatural relationships that men and women have with the same sex. He says that those who did these perverted acts paid the penalty. Others are said to be "filled with unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, disputes, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful" (Rom 1:29-31). They all did their best to be the worst, and enticed and then praised those who would join them in their acts. Sadly, this was the state of the church in Rome in Paul's day, and so it is in our society AND churches today. Unnatural relationships are rewarded within some Christian churches today, and the catalog of "human beastliness" is prevalent in and outside of the church. Sadly, although these things have not changed, this is our hope: God has not changed either, and the offer of grace that transforms that He extended thousands of years ago has not been rescinded.

Covenantal Ignorance?

It may be my feeble understanding of things that has me wondering the following, but here we go.
I have often wondered why the Jewish converts to Christianity did not realize that they were now under the new coventant that Jeremiah prophesied in Jer. 31:31-34. It discusses how the old covenant was broken by God's people and the new covenant would be completely different. The term "new" implies the replacement of the old which is then backed up by the reference to the old covenant being broken.
To me, this idea should not have been foreign to them and should have been adopted as soon as they realized Christ as the messiah.
Why was this not sooner realized by so many who knew the scripture so well.

Mr. Bill Lee Faber

Denominational Problems of Antiquity

The passages in the first five chapters of Romans remind me of the problems we have between the different denominations that exists today. When one looks at the way Paul addresses the Gentile and Jew disputes over righteousness and salvation, How can
Churches today still argue over the same topics. I am blown away that some Churches and individuals still believe that they have some kind of spiritual dominance over others. I don't understand how anyone can read Romans or any of Paul's letters and have trouble grasping the concept that salvation is by grace alone. There are no specific acts, rituals, or processes that lead one to God except by grace given through Jesus. I also do not understand how some can justify thinking that they are more righteous than others by their knowledge of scripture. I heard a saying one time that reminds me of this, "to know and not to do, is not to know!" If they have read Romans then they ought to know, however the reality is that most people who fall subject to this trap have not investigated the scriptures for themselves.

The Pater familia

We discussed in Ministerial Orientation that God is head over the church and then comes Christ and then the church and then the leaders of the church follow, serving the church. I find it interesting that we have so strayed from this example and now follow our pastors like they are the mouthpiece of God and that the church is thier playground. Like the shepard the pastor must take the role of servant to the flock in order to effectively nurture the flock. I think that it is interesting to see that the most effective pastors serve the church more than lead it. I am finding that the more a pastor pushes to further his agenda, or even the harder church members push a pastors agenda, the farther it seems to stray from the TRUTH. I feel that if we are going to change this error that we have made we are going to have to revamp all of church politics.

Roman Christianity

In the first few pages of Polhill's section on Romans he discusses how Christianity came to Rome. Coming from a Catholic family I have always heard of the greatness of Peter as the first Pope and that it was he that started Christianity in Rome. After reading Polhill and reflecting on parts of the book of Acts I have began to question this statement. Polhill suggests that lay people were responsibile for bringing Christianity to Rome. If this is true it is an enormous testiment to the previous work done by Paul and others. For these people to have only just learned about Christ, but yet have enough discipline to take that message and actually start 'churches' (even though it may have been house meetings) is phenomenal.

As I read this section by Polhill I could not help but to think of Barnabbas and John Mark in the book of Acts. We have no record of their ministry activity which took place after the First Missionary Journey. Is it possible that Barnabbas was the one that brought Christianity to Rome? This is purely an argument from silence, however Polhill mentions Paul's policy of not intruding on the territory of other missionaries (2 Cor. 10: 15-16). Perhaps that is the reason why we don't know where Barnabbas ministered or if he indeed was responsible for bringing Christianity to Rome.

-Steven Price

Unworthy Leaders

Last Monday we discussed 1 Corinthians and in the class lecture on chapter 3 we discussed the defects of the church of Corinth had. One of them was that they put their leaders on a pedestal, which I think is still a big issue in today's churches as well. To many times we look at the pastor or youth minister in a godly sense, they are god-like in our eyes and we take their word on what the Bible says, instead of looking and studying the Bible for ourselves. The people of Corinth were making their faith statements by who they followed and Paul says that unless they follow Christ Himself then this is all useless, we can't base our faith on who our leader is, because even they are human and will make mistakes. Put your faith in Jesus alone and have godly wisdom is what Paul is trying to tell the Corinthians. Big Bro james B

Peace in Righteousness

Romans 5 is a great section of scripture that describes a strive for a peace filled life. What is peace? Is peace abstract to where there is no set definition? I would say not because I think we have a great definition of what peace accually is. We can blame whoever for an unpeaceful life even in the faith, yet do we have a desire for righteousness. Romans 5:1 says, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. That seems to be a pretty blunt definition of the word peace. When we are justified through faith, then comes the peace we search for each day. Why should we strive for righteousness, it is through faith and only faith comes peace. Righteousness alone is simply morality. Peace is a gift from faith through Christ.

-Jacob

I can remember when i began to understand that Christianity had alot more to do with Christ and alot less to do with me. Growing up in a society that says "become a christian and it'll make everything better for YOUR life" skewed my understanding of the cross, and the duty of discipleship.

Monday Dr. F. discussed Paul's view on the function of hardship within Christianity, in 2 Cor 11. Either i have just recently began to listen to the Word more clearly or the topic of Christian suffering has been ignored for the last 20 years, at least in my sphere of influence, but as christians we are called to more than sermons and "worship" we are called to die, and that is so so very uncomfortable. People can truly see the character and love of Christ thought the scars of his followers.

All Roads Lead To Romans?

The theory that states that Paul intended Romans as a systematic or quasi systematic theology has a number of implications that one must consider. The qualification of Romans as a systematic theology could result in the use of Romans as a standard for the interpretation of all Pauline or even all New Testament literature. I am certainly not saying that Romans should not be considered as a candidate for systematic theology. On the contrary, I believe that Paul is very systematic in his purpose, but I believe that he addressed the divide between Gentiles and Jews. The issue that Paul addressed was the greatest issue in first century Christianity. No other book gives a more thorough resolution to the issue than Romans. In many respects, all roads do lead to Romans. Paul's rabbinic arguments reference the pre-law faith of Abraham, the entrance of sin into the world through Adam, and the imputation of righteousness through faith in Christ. Paul gives one of the most thorough theological connections of New Testament and Old Testament ideas in the Biblical text, but as Polhill stated, the letter did not cover all bases of theological thought. Paul neglects eschatology and Christology because they were not relevant to his occasional letter. In conclusion, there are many theories surrounding the purpose of Romans, but all theories must considered in light of Roman's status as an occasional letter. Roman's provides a thorough account of salvation by faith and has been utilized in evangelical methods such as the Roman's road. Nevertheless, the theological question of purpose remains. "Do all roads lead to Romans?"

In Christ,
the other Paul

To the Circumcised First

Based on the discussion in class today all I can think about is the requirement to be Jew. I mean there wasn't a secret word at the door or a special knock. In this club you literally would have to prove yourself. Maybe that’s how Paul ended up as such a bold speaker; embarrassment went out the door years ago. I have never thought about circumcision as mentioned today. It always seemed to be law of the Law, a rule that must be followed. The idea that it served as a marker for those whose follow the Law brings it into a new light. Now I can better understand why Jews were so reluctant to change, and even more so why Gentiles thought they were nuts. This indicator of their religion was directly commanded by God. It was thereby proof of a religion that stood the test of time. To convert now would, in their minds, totally throw out the past, disregard everything they had been taught. From a Gentile perspective it was time to change. Through the message of Christ, by Paul, they understood the past, to some extent, must be thrown out. If cutting yourself was part of a fulfilled Law, it is thereby abolished. Circumcision was to them an indicator of a fulfilled religion.

Blessing or Curse

Rom 11:32
32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
NIV
After reading this verse I am deeply disturbed. Paul says that God has bound us all into a sin nature. Does that mean that God did not have to curse the decedents of Adam and Eve to sin? If God did not have to curse us, yet He did, does that mean that it is better to be cursed by a sin nature with the chance for mercy, than to be blameless and be able to communicate with God directly as did Adam and Eve. If it is better to have a chance for mercy then is our sin nature not a curse but a blessing?

Danny

Romans 6....Apologetical?

We discussed the different factors that prompted Paul to write the book of Romans in class today. Dr. Foster pruposed, and I agree, that the chief reason for Paul to write the Romans was to begin building a foundatin from which to launch his western missions, but we also observed occurrances of what seemed to be apologetics. These observations were made in the following passages: 1:16, 3:8, and 9:1-8. However, Romans 6 is the chapter that immideately grabbed my attetion as being apologetical. In his conclusion of the Gospel answer to the depravity of man, he states that, "where sing increased, grace abounded all the more..." (5:20). Paul goes straight into an argument to gaurd against the abuse of grace in chapter six. Why? Is it because people in Rome were struggling to swallow the aspect of grace in the Christian faith? Was it simply that in Paul's mind the issue of free grace would naturally lead to the question he poses in 6:1, and so he chose to answer the question that he presumed would arouse? There is no way to tell what happened in the minds of the Roman believers and non-believers alike regarding grace, but it is logical to assume that if the Roman church promoted the doctrine of free grace, the issue of sinning to increase grace would likewise have followed. Therefore, wheter the issue Paul adresses is already extant or simply potential, I think it only logical to consider the sixth chapter of Romans as apologetical in its intent.

The Importance of a definite article...

In reading Polhill, and in Romans 4, Paul uses a rabbinical argument about the faith of Abraham...in the process he tells the story of Abraham's faithfulness that he would be the father of nations...I think its crazy how the ommission of the a definite article 'a' or 'the' completely changes the entire point of Paul's argument and the story of Abraham. Paul was trying to provide unity among Jew and Gentile by explaining that no one is better than the next...he uses Abraham to argue that righteousness does not come from the law, because if that were the case then Abraham could not have been righteous because the law was not written until after God had considered him righteous. God's promise to Abraham was he would be the father of nations, and Abraham had faith in this promise. This faith merited his righteousness, given as a gift from God. God's promise was not to be a father of 'a' nation (as Jews believed in thier self righteousness they were the only nation), but a father of 'nations'.

This is the second time the past few days that I have realized the ommision of one single, seemingly insiginficant letter or word can change a person's perspective on scripture and thus change thier belief system and theology.

Pretty crazy...pretty crazy...