The Right Meaning of Romans

[Guido]

Guido you do insult someone when you ask for commentary suggestions then accuse them of "opposing the gospel" because they are a Calvinist. I forgive you though because the description of "Calvinism" you give shows that you don't know what it is either. As you are seeing, no non-Calvinists are suggesting any commentaries. That is one of the main reasons I became a Calvinist - most haters of Calvinism have no workable theology and that is in many cases on purpose.
If I could make a suggestion that might be acceptable to you. It would be William Newell, "Romans Verse by Verse".
He did teach God's sovereignty but was against a limited atonement. The book is old enough that he knew nothing of the modern debates. It's still in print on Amazon and if you look around you can get a paperback for 5 dollars or so.

Thanks. I'll definitely read it.

If Calvinists don't teach random selection for salvation, then what do they teach about unconditional election?

 

[AustinC]

Thanks. I'll definitely read it.

If Calvinists don't teach random selection for salvation, then what do they teach about unconditional election?

Is God ever random?

Simply because God doesn't tell us his process, this doesn't make God random. It makes us rather prideful when we demand to know the thoughts of God.

 

[DaveXR650]

If Calvinists don't teach random selection for salvation, then what do they teach about unconditional election?

What Austin said above is true. It's God doing what he determines to do - without consulting you or me. But all the reformers were trying to say was that God doesn't save people based on some merit or characteristic of the person. Even in the Old Testament God makes it clear that there was nothing special about Israel that caused God to choose them as His people. It doesn't mean God had no reason, or rolled the dice but that His reasons are reserved to Him, and he makes it clear he doesn't have to share his motives with us. Calvinism has a high view and respect for God. If you are unfamiliar with it read some Puritans or even Calvin before you get involved in the TULIP wars.

 

[Guido]

What Austin said above is true. It's God doing what he determines to do - without consulting you or me. But all the reformers were trying to say was that God doesn't save people based on some merit or characteristic of the person. Even in the Old Testament God makes it clear that there was nothing special about Israel that caused God to choose them as His people. It doesn't mean God had no reason, or rolled the dice but that His reasons are reserved to Him, and he makes it clear he doesn't have to share his motives with us. Calvinism has a high view and respect for God. If you are unfamiliar with it read some Puritans or even Calvin before you get involved in the TULIP wars.

Is there a place online where I can read their writings? I searched for it not long ago in vain.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would start with monergism.com. Also look for writings by Thomas Watson or John Bunyan. If you have or can get a kindle or electronic reader of some kind those old writings are super cheap - 2 dollars. Calvin himself is surprisingly easy to read too. Stay away from Jonathan Edwards or John Owen at first because they are hard to read and give the other sides argument in such detail that you will think it is their opinion and it can be confusing. Phil Johnson has a series of articles on the grace to you website called "Why I Am a Calvinist" which goes at it from the viewpoint of someone who is new to all this and it is very moderate and kind in tone.

 

[JamesL]

You might have better luck if you do as Joseph Smith, who surmised that every church, and every doctrine therein, were altogether wrong.

I'm not saying he's right, but here's a very good question to ponder: would you rather have a viewpoint which makes a mockery of Paul's intelligence, writing skills and the "not random"-ness of God (as someone mentioned previously)? Or would you rather have a viewpoint which understands continuity of thought throughout large swaths of the epistle?

I'll tell you, if you follow any pathway through Rome and her wayward children, you will have the former.

 

[canadyjd]

You might have better luck if you do as Joseph Smith, who surmised that every church, and every doctrine therein, were altogether wrong.

I'm not saying he's right, but here's a very good question to ponder: would you rather have a viewpoint which makes a mockery of Paul's intelligence, writing skills and the "not random"-ness of God (as someone mentioned previously)? Or would you rather have a viewpoint which understands continuity of thought throughout large swaths of the epistle?

I'll tell you, if you follow any pathway through Rome and her wayward children, you will have the former.

Are you praising Joseph Smith? The man who invented Mormonism?

peace to you

 

[JamesL]

Are you praising Joseph Smith? The man who invented Mormonism?

peace to you

Are you reading what I wrote?

 

[canadyjd]

Are you reading what I wrote?

I’m asking for clarification of what you wrote.

You might have better luck if you do as Joseph Smith, who surmised that every church, and every doctrine therein, were altogether wrong.

I'm not saying he's right, but…….

Peace to you

 

[JamesL]

I’m asking for clarification of what you wrote.


Peace to you

You're not clear on "I'm not saying he's right" ?

 

[canadyjd]

You're not clear on "I'm not saying he's right" ?

I don’t understand how anyone could say,

You might have better luck if you do as Joseph Smith, who surmised that every church, and every doctrine therein, were altogether wrong…..

Please clarify what you mean?

Are you saying that a Christian struggling to understand a passage or a New Testament letter would have better luck following Joseph Smiths example of surmising every church and every doctrine therein is wrong?

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

 

[JamesL]

I don’t understand how anyone could say,

Please clarify what you mean?

Are you saying that a Christian struggling to understand a passage or a New Testament letter would have better luck following Joseph Smiths example of surmising every church and every doctrine therein is wrong?

peace to you

That was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

I'm sorry. I thought that came out in my next bit, that I'm not saying he's right, but here's a good question.....

I see too many "learned" men make mince meat out of Romans. All that studying to fall headlong after error. Sheesh. Tradition stands. Biblical inquiry gets mocked.

I know I said it was tongue-in-cheek (and I meant that), but now I don't know how to pick the lesser of those evils

 

[kyredneck]

Sheesh. Tradition stands. Biblical inquiry gets mocked.

James! Good to see you back!

 

[kyredneck]

Are you saying that a Christian struggling to understand a passage or a New Testament letter would have better luck following Joseph Smiths example of surmising every church and every doctrine therein is wrong?

No. He's not. He's saying 'do as the Bereans', see for yourself, don't take others words for it hook, line and sinker as most do.

 

[kyredneck]

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Sola scriptura!

 

[George Antonios]

believing this, that the Book of Romans, though written to believers, those having faith in Jesus Christ, the purpose thereof is the preaching of the gospel thereto, of salvation not only in a single sense; that the ones who received the letter he wrote them may add new saints to their number, obedient to the faith which he proclaimed.

Could you please clarify? I am not sure I understood you.

 

[canadyjd]

That was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

I'm sorry. I thought that came out in my next bit, that I'm not saying he's right, but here's a good question.....

I see too many "learned" men make mince meat out of Romans. All that studying to fall headlong after error. Sheesh. Tradition stands. Biblical inquiry gets mocked.

I know I said it was tongue-in-cheek (and I meant that), but now I don't know how to pick the lesser of those evils

Thanks for clarifying. Smith fell headlong into heresy, so it seems an easy pick for me. There is nothing that he taught that should be followed.

Peter said Paul’s writings were difficult to understand. Very learned men and women have debated them for 2000 years.

However, I think considering a variety of ideas from people who have devoted their lives to study, especially original languages, can be helpful in understanding.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

Just an FYI to those following

the Key word in Romans is justification

the key passage is the ordo salutis in Romans 8:29-30

verse

Romans 5:1. Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ

The predestination of Romans 8 is unto a Christ-like resurrection body, not salvation.
Imagine an ordo salutis without redemption being mentioned.

 

[Marooncat79]

Romans 8:6-8

Noone carnally minded can do anything to please God ie call out to God in faith

the carnal and carnal minded cannot please God in any way