My disclaimer

Also, just in case anyone reads these blogs (which I highly doubt anyone is. But if you are... cool! Velkom!)...

I'm nooooo theologian.... so I have noooooo formal theological backgroundish training.

These are just me thoughts about Romans and I can't find any blogs or commentaries that give a straightforward interpretation except the old Calvinistic route, which tends to read more into Romans than what really is there and doesn't even consider other ways of reading it.

Inotherwords...
too many Calvinist commentaries + not enough Armenian commentaries = a frustrated Heather.

so I'm doing my own study. :)

Romans 4

Romans 4:1-5 is SO important. I've heard Calvinists say that even "faith" is a work because then it's something we're doing that causes us to "earn" salvation. But these verses contrast works and faith. Here, they are two distinct things. Faith is clearly not a work here.

Romans 4:9-12 shows that the blessing of the forgiveness and covering over of sins is not limited to the Jews, but also can be for the Gentile: for the circumcised and uncircumcised so long as they follow the footsteps of Abraham (simply believing God)

Romans 4:13-15 - the Law simply shows us how far we are from God's character. We're to aim to follow God (not become gods, as mormons would believe). "The Law brings about wrath" could mean that we feel the severity of how far we are from God. Being away from the beauty of God hurts us; it's painful. In this interpretation, THAT'S "wrath".

Romans 4:16-17 reiterates that grace is for all (something universalists hold to) and God "gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist." Even if annihilationism were true, then God will even bring back that which was once considered unredeemable.
hmmm... things to ponder.

Romans 4:18-25 restates the beginning of this chapter.

Famous adoptions

I've been writing my autobiography required for our adoption process and one of the questions asked us to cite any direct or indirect experiences with adoption. Here are some other famous people who were adopted or had adopted:

Famous people:

• Moses, THE major figure of the Old Testament, was sent down a river and was adopted by the Pharaoh's daughter
• Jesus, THE major figure of the New Testament, was adopted by his father Joseph
• Esther was adopted by her cousin, Mordecai

Imaginary people: (yes, there's overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually existed, so don't even go there)

• Superman, aka Clark Kent (adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent)
• Batman, aka Bruce (technically he may not have been adopted, but both his parents were killed and his butler was like an adoptive parent to him - his guardian)
• Spiderman, (adopted by his aunt and uncle)
• Luke Skywalker (adopted by his aunt and uncle, Owen)
• Princess Leia (adopted by Senator Viceroy Bail Organa and Queen Breha Organa)

And all of them had movies made about them! It's also interesting that the evil villains in the comics were not adopted as far as we know. Hmmm...

If you know of any others, please add!

Romans 3

I decided to incorporate the actual verses from the NASU, though that will make this entry a lot longer. Please note: the bullet points are only my summaries and my analysis of the text.

3:1-2 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

• What's the point in being Jewish it the first place? They were entrusted with God's oracles - this is an honorable and noble calling for the Jews

3:3-4 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."

• The unbelief of some doesn't nullify God's faithfulness.

3:5-8 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? ( I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), " Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.

• Because we sinned, God's grace and faithfulness could be shown likewise, but that's no excuse foor us to purposefully sin or justify our own sinning.

3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;

• Greeks (as a whole) are under the same situation as the Jews (as a whole) as far as sin is concerned.
• What does it mean per Paul to be "under" sin? Does he really mean "enslavement" where we can't do otherwise? Verses 5-8 seem to suggest that we can do otherwise: we can prevent ourselves from willfully sinning. So the "under" may imply "under the condemnation that comes with sinning."

3:10-18 as it is written,

"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

• A few notes about the Psalms here that are quoted: in these Psalms, David makes a distinction between the evildoer camp and the righteous camp within the entire Jewish nation. Paul seems to be showing that as the Jewish nation contains evildoers (those who revel in doing evil), so does the Gentile nation.
• It's also quite possible that David was speaking hyperbolically. If you read other Psalms, you'll notice there's a bit of exaggeration that goes on. David is laying out raw emotion in the Psalms he wrote. When people do that (laying out raw emotion), they tend to exaggerate a bit to drive their point home... to show how they feel.

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

• Jews are accountable to the Law

3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

• The law informs us of sin

3:21-22 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;

• Being righteous is not contingent upon knowledge of the Law though the righteousness according to God's standard is shown in the Law and the prophets.
• Note: Does this mean that actual prophets were the embodiment of the Law? It seems that Jeremiah was.
• All who have faith in Jesus Christ partake in God's righteousness

3:23-26 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

• All have sinned and through faith in Christ/Meshiach Jesus are justified.

3:27-30 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

• Grace is available to all: Jews and Gentiles.

Notes to this chapter: The previous chapter had to do with rewards for what we do (acts/works). This chapter makes a comparison between Jews and non-Jews: they both are essentially in the same situation: both have people who have faith and are made righteous and both have people who are living sinful lives. Simply being raised in the Jewish faith doesn't guarantee salvation.

Romans 2

Outline notes of mine:

2:1 (RSV) Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are
(NIV) You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment

2:1-5 This seems to be against hypocrites who judge others but do the same sins as those they judge.

2:6-10 If you do good & seek righteousness or if you do evil & are self-seeking, God will give each what is deserved.

2:11 "God shows no favoritism"

• What we can gather minimally from this passage is that God does not play favorites regarding giving due rewards for what we do, whether evil or good.
• These verses (6-11) do not seem to relate to how or even whether God elects people for salvation unconditionally. (i.e. the "U" of TULIP)

2:12 Those who sin while not knowing the law will perish; those who sin while knowing the Law will be judged.

• Hmm... annihilation for those who don't know any better & hell for those who do know better? There's a "secondary debate" within Christian circles over whether souls will be annihilated or eternally tormented. Could both sides of the issue be right? One verse alone can't decide that, but this verse does provoke some interesting thoughts.
• Another idea is that "perish" may have meant something different to the ancient Roman-Jewish mind than what we might assume today. Gotta do more research on this.

2:13-16 Doers of the Law will be justified, even if they don't know the letter of the Law because it is written on their hearts and can follow that. They all will be judged accordingly.

2:17-24 Talking about teachers and leaders who are hypocrites, doing the very thing they condemn in their teaching.

2:25-29 Sinning nullifies circumcision; circumcision must be on the inside, not on the outside

My overview: The chapter starts and ends with hypocrisy and explains how at judgment everyone will get what they deserve regarding rewards for good things they've done and punishments for evil they've done. However, it is unclear how the reward system will actually play out. Also, people may confuse "rewards for good things they've done" for salvation, but salvation is a separate issue - it is something unearnable by works, only given to those who have faith in Jesus the Messiah (who is YHVH Himself).

Romans 1

So here is my attempt at analyzing Romans a bit. It's sort of a homiletics format (at least, how I've been taught to do homiletics. I may be doing this all wrong - this may not be "homiletics" after all, but w/e). But instead of simply summarizing (as I've been taught by 2 people), I'd like to explore different possible ways one may be able to interpret the text, as far as I can tell. I'm no Biblical scholar... just a layperson. So if anyone reads this, please take it with a grain of salt. I also didn't comment on some verses because I see them as straight-forward (though it may be true that I'm seeing those verses through a philosophical grid that I'm not aware of... but who doesn't?).

Romans

1:1-2 Paul was "set apart for the gospel"

• This doesn't say "set apart by the gospel" or "because of the gospel" but "for the gospel"
• One interpretation: could be set apart for the purpose of preaching the gospel (as opposed to a Jane-shmo like me (vs. "Joe-shmo")). Some people will take this text and apply it to all believers. While that could be a possibility, that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Minimally, Paul is asserting his authority and calling given by God.
• Another interpretation: Could be set apart because he's already one of the pre-chosen elect... but this interpretation is a stretch I think.

1:3 The gospel was promised earlier through the prophets.

1:5-6 "among all the nations" ; the Romans are also called to belong to Jesus Christ

• Is this a universal "all" or a particular "all"? At first people will say "universal", but when you delve deeper into their theologies strong Calvinists who assert "limited atonement" would tend to say "particular". Why? Christ only died for the elect, thus the gospel is only for the elect.
• What is the etymology behind "called"? Does this mean appointed or invited?

1:7 To all God's beloved in Rome who are called to be saints

• Is everyone who lives in Rome God's beloved, or is there a particular group who live in Rome who are God's beloved while those not of that group who live in Rome are not God's beloved? Universal or particular? It's still a bit vague.

1:8 "your faith is proclaimed throughout the world"

• Based on the history and the text, one can say this means the Christian world within the Roman Empire.

1:16 Salvation is only for everyone who believes

• The question behind the text: how is this belief acquired? By God's effect or our choice or a combination or something else I missed?

1:17 Faith brings righteousness ; "the righteous shall live by faith"

• Here's a common argument I've heard (albeit, a vicious circular one): "There is no one righteous, no not one" (Rom 3:10) and "the righteous shall live by faith"
• If we're not righteous, how can we live by faith? If we don't have faith, how can that bring righteousness? Ooh, we're getting dizzy. How do we settle this? People will give this Jonathan Edwards-ish answer: We follow only our desires, so God must put that desire in us to have faith, which in turn leads to righteousness. Though I think there's a better way to solve this. Please do tell, you say?
• I think Romans 3:10 is taken out of it's original context... we need to go back to the first occurence of this in the Old Testament and we'd see that the Romans 3:10 verse is only talking about a particular group: the wicked. Within that group, there is no one righteous, not even one. Additionally, this quote could be interpreted hyperbolically. Is it true that the wicked can't turn around? I think David was talking in extremes in the Psalms passage.
• One other point regarding "faith": Does this mean "wishful thinking & hoping without good reason"? I don't think so. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. They overlap.

1:18 "The wicked & godless suppress truth by their wickedness"

• Does the "wicked" and "righteous" groups mean "non-believers" and "believers"? The opposite of "wicked" isn't "righteous". The opposite of "wicked" is "good". You can have non-believers who genuinely try to be good people, though the definition of "good" within the non-theistic worldview is rather vague.

1:19 God has made the truth plain everyone / available & accessible to all

• How would this square with irresistable grace? The truth is even more plain to the elect than the non-elect?

1:26 What are "natural relations" as opposed to "unnatural relations"?

• Verse 27 seems to show that "natural relations" are that between a man and a woman

1:28-32 "Gave them over to a depraved mind," they have become filled with every kind of evil

• Again, universal or particular... that is, everyone individually was given over to a depraved mind, and every person has become filled with every kind of evil? I don't think so. Take person "non-believing, evil Jane" for example. Does Jane do every kind of evil? No. Only some things. Does the group Jane hangs out with do every kind of evil? That's more plausible. We know individuals don't do every kind of evil nor do they condone every kind either. This is talking about a group, which supports my hypothesis that you can gather throughout this chapter: Paul is talking about groups, not individuals. Many people will interpret verses on a "personal" or "individual" level. I default to a "corporate view" when interpreting these passages.

My general summary of this chapter:

verses 1-17: Paul was assigned one job: to share the good news of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of prophecy. Being raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit validated who Jesus was: the Son of God. This message is for all. Paul wishes to visit the Romans sometime; they have been growing strong in faith. The righteous attain life through faith.

verses 18-32: God is angry regarding those who follow a life of sin because they ignored the truth which God had made plain for them to see. Yet they didn't turn, but instead re-invented and re-defined God in their minds, which led them to worship images of man & beasts. God tried the tough-love approach (allowing them to go deeper into sin & shame) but they still wouldn't turn, though they knew through their actions they could only attain death.

Notes: Interesting parallels here - the first section has to do with those (the group) who follow righteousness. The second are those (the group) who follow evil. The end of the first section (1-17) is regarding life; the second (18-32) is regarding death.

Also, for some reason, many bloggers, pastors, and laypeople will view these as pre-grace (verses 18-32) and post-grace (verses 1-17): "Before God pulled me in, I belonged to the verses 18-32 and was completely evil with no good in me (again referring to Rom 3:10 ad nauseum) and then God pulled me into the verses 1-17 camp." I see that as adding to the text.

But all Paul is really doing is decribing two groups of people. That's all. He's not saying we're limited to those groups nor that we can jump back and forth nor is he saying we are completely lost on our own. That is an open question at this point in the text.

Reasons for Analyzing Romans

After having enough Calvinists quote Romans to support their views, I decided to really get down to analyzing it.

Part of this decision came from a person quoting Romans 3:10-11 to support the position that all are unable to understand (Total Depravity) unless God affects God's grace on a person, thus God is the one who is really doing all the action; our salvation has nothing to do with our choice initially(Unconditional Election)... (though when bringing up the double-election, whatever the technical/theological word for it is, they will turn to the "no one is without excuse; God's made the information plain for everyone" horn).

I asked this person for the context of the Romans 3:10-11 passage, and I was only given a very general statement: that Romans 1-3 is all about giving the history of how humanity fell since the days of Adam. By phrasing it that way, without knowing the context myself having no Bible in hand, it seemed that Romans 1 would be about our initial state (pre-Fall) leading to the culmination (Romans 3:10-11, all have sinned, all are running away from God and cannot turn back to God on their own accord/will). However, when just given that context, I just had a strong feeling that he may have been "stacking the deck" to prove his point. Now that I've analyzed those chapters myself I realize that he was...oooh, yeah he was, though perhaps unintentionally.

Though I can see how, without a thorough analysis of Psalms 14 (all of it, not just verses 1-3), one can interpret Romans 3:10-11 in that manner. But it would have helped if that person who quoted the Romans 3:10-11 passage would have simply said that Paul was quoting verses from the Psalms.

Had I known this during the discussion, I would have at least understood that some of the Psalms were written a bit more in the extreme sense, not meant to be taken quite so literally as we Greek-minded people may be inclined to do. After going home and finding the passage myself, I noticed I could make a good case that Paul seems to have refered the Psalms to make a case about a certain group of people rather than all people who ever lived. Perhaps in another post (if I remember), I'll present how I came to that conclusion about the Psalms passages that Paul quotes.

Note to self: discuss Psalms 14 and 53 eventually.

Realization about Friendships

Warning: this post will not really contain anything of intellectual substance (I think...)

I just realized this morning and all day today that I have to close the door and move on to the next room of my life. Some events from last week brought me to this revelation: some old friends made it fairly obvious that they had already shut the door on me. Contact has been weak at best for the past 2-3 years. They moved on, I hadn't. I'm still nostalgic of the past... when Central's group, Impact/Prime Time, was going so well. Damn, I miss those people. They all have a special place in my heart. But it's time to move on now.

After Alan and I got married, about a third disappeared off the face of the social earth. That's a strange thing about our society (or maybe just LV). When people get married, all the singles seem to vanish and don't want to come over and hang out anymore. When people have kids, they vanish and say they don't have time anymore. Conversations became more and more stilted.

Now there are some other people who I've tried being friends with, but they've hardly reciprocated. They hardly called before having kids (for those who do have kids now), and now they never call. I realize I'm low on their list. I need to shut that door, though I don't want to, and move on to the next room of my life. I'll still be here for them (if they ever call) and I'll aim to not hold grudges (I'm being honest), but I'm no longer going to look to them for friendship. I need to find other people who will reciprocate. After talking with my parents about it, I realize it's not me... it's the culture of the town. It's hard to find healthy friends who will reciprocate. It sucks. I never felt like I really belonged here anyway. I've always been looking for a way out.

I also need to give up Sunday night church. I have no real friends there. I might find friends elsewhere.

Where has all the substance gone?

I spend a bit too much time on the computer when I have free time. I think I know why so here's my attempt to fix it.

I do want to keep up to date with what's going on in the theological world, but I realize much of the stuff I've read isn't quite concise and to the point. For example, I was reading the blog, Emergent No (EN). EN made a lot of assertions about some people like Scott McKnight, Tony Jones, and Brian McLaren ... but currently I don't know a lot about these people (pastors? theologians? other?). So since I don't know a lot about these people, I'd like to hear some good evidence to support EN's assertions. However, I haven't found much. EN provides some quotes from these people, but the analysis is rather weak. Here's an example (quote taken from the EN blog):

Jones then informs us that Eckhart’s work is:

a mystical treatise on the intersection between Greek philosophy and Christian theology with an emphasis on God’s indwelling of humanity (emphasis added).

So this patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ is where it begins, and where this deception leads is summed up in the statement that will follow. These Christ-denying and man-pleasing words actually come from a document produced by the Second Vatican Council of the Church of Rome called Gaudium et Spes:

So ... please explain to me how this quote is a "patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ". How are these "Christ-denying and man-pleasing words"? Call me stupid, but I don't get it. These claims need to be spelled out by EN. I've read the blog entry for answers to these questions of mine and have found nothing. And where is the "statement that will follow" which is supposed to show us where "this deception (whatever this "deception" is - please explain) leads".

EN also quotes Len Sweet's quote of David Bohm:

I am calling the New Light apologetic. It is already present in bits and pieces, here and there in this discipline and that discipline, in this denomination and that denomination, in this thinker and that thinker. The New Light apologetic represents a Christian alternative to the largely Old Light “New Age” movement.

(bold and underlining is EN's)

Now it seems that, when reading EN's critique of this quote, EN notices the "Old Light 'New Age' movement," but I don't think EN grasps what the author's main point is. EN associates this with the New Age movement and seems to think that Sweet is therefore aligning himself with the New Age movement. But I don't see that. I only see Sweet saying that we live in a postmodern world and we must adapt our method (a new apologetic) to reaching out to the postmodern world. But this doesn't necessarily mean becoming one with the postmodern world (and from what I've read, I think Sweet would agree).

So, since the EN writer doesn't really give good grounds for her assertions and claims, I think I'm going to remove that blog from my reading list. Searching for her reasons for her claims takes up too much time.

I was just reading the CARM website and I really have to say, I'm displeased with it. People who read stuff off of it really don't get a fair picture of the issues the writer personally disagrees with. For example, with Open Theism, the writer of that article on CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) completely misunderstands the true issue behind the debate. It's not about God's omniscience because nearly all OT's fully believe that God is 100% omniscient.

What's the main issue? The nature of the future. (But CARM doesn't quite get it) Is the future exhaustively settled or is it still partially open? Does the future currently exist as a B-Theorist of time would say, or does it not exist yet as the A-Theorist would say? Yes, God knows the beginning and end of this creation, and yes, God knows of what is absolutely certain between those two points... but the question is, are all events fully settled between the "will happens" and "will not happens"? Many OT's believe those two terms "will" and "will not" (in as far as the future is concerned) are not contradictories, rather they are contraries because there is a third option: "might and might not happen".

The CARM writer states, "In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable." This statement is not true. He should have written, "the future is partially open and partially settled." In as far as the "knowable" part, if event E in the future currently is a "might do X and might not do X", then that is all that can be said about that event until the agent actually does the action. Those who come from a B-Theorist position might ask, "So does God know what the agent will do?" That B-Theorist is still referencing a B-Theorist framework. Recall, the OTist believes there are three possibilities of the future: 1)will, 2)will not, and 3)might & might not. Quit trying to turn the 3) into a 1)! If it's 3), then God knows it as such. It is true that a "will" entails a "might", but a "might" does not necessarily entail a "will".

CARM also states that OT's "differ in that the [sic] God can only know that which is knowable..." Tell me, what's wrong with God knowing only what is knowable? Is he telling us that God also knows that which is false as being true? His idea of God knowing what is unknowable is simply incoherent.

He also thinks OT's believe, "God only knows the present exhaustively." This also doesn't represent OT correctly. Yes, God knows the present exhaustively and the past and future exhaustively, but the question is the nature, or content, of the future. God knows the current status of the future, again in the 3 categories outlined above."God can make mistakes..." wrong again. A mistake relates to knowledge of reality... if I have a false or incorrect understanding of something of reality, I make a mistake.

"Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively." So do OTists. The question is the nature of the future.

"Is God all knowing about the future or not?" Yes.

"Is God existing in the future or not?" No. If the future doesn't exist, how can God exist in the future?

"Is God limited to the present or not?" If only the present is all there is, that is, if it's all that exists... what exists (God & creation) can only exist (are "limited" to) in what actually exists (reality).

"God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in open theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future." If the future doesn't exist, how can God be in the non-existent future?

All quotes are from the CARM website.

Adoption, Abortion, and Gatica

We're thinking of adoption, but I've been having thoughts about the idea of "selecting" what baby to adopt. How different is that from Gattaca where people could decide what color eyes and what skills they want their babies to have. All undesired embryos in the film were disposed before the parents had the option of deciding on a boy, girl, blue eyes, or brown eyes. Gattica is a story about an Undesired, Borrowed Ladder, etc.

For adoption, we can decide what racial preference, what gender, whether they have drugs or alcohol in their system vs. most likely being clean, etc. There is a high prevalence of "drug babies" in our city; in fact the city orphanage is so overfilled so that babies are now being kept in hospitals, yet there is a 2 year waiting list through private agencies for caucasian babies. I ended up asking myself, "would I have preferred those babies to have been aborted instead?" Morally-speaking, no...but emotionally-speaking? But I still think it's a bit unfair how people who are so hooked on drugs and irresponsible are able to conceive, and do conceive (why didn't they just get their productive equipment permanently disabled?), while there are so many good couples who are unable to conceive and are hoping to adopt. Am I wrong for thinking this?