Paul: Humans, left to their own devices, are under for God's wrath. (ch. 1-3)
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.
Us: Humans aren't that bad; most people are good at heart.
Paul: Humans who try to find righteousness by adhering to a set of rules (the Jews, in Paul's case) are under God's wrath. (ch 1-3)
Us: Yes, Jesus died for our sins, but we've still got plenty of unwritten rules, don't you worry!
Paul: Salvation can only be found in Christ. (ch 3)
Us: Salvation can only be found in politics.
Paul: Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? No way! (ch 6)
Us: A little sinning here and there isn't really a sin at all, as long as it doesn't violate one of our unwritten rules (see above).
Paul: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel us to spread the gospel! (ch 9-11)
Us: The fact that people without Christ are under God's wrath should compel someone else to spread the gospel!
Paul: The gospel should cause a transformation in every area of our lives: Our church life, our citizenship to the state, our interactions with family, friends and strangers, etc. (ch 12-15)
Us: What I do outside of church is my own business.
Paul: We should put aside our freedoms in nonmoral areas for the sake of unity and peace. (ch 14-15)
Us: I'm an American; I have rights and I will use them!
I wonder what Paul would tell us today. How would Romans be different if we were his original audience? Would he have to change his message? Or would it be much the same, stressing the same things, since the Romans were humans just like us, too, struggling with the same issues day in and day out? I think the latter might be more likely. Preaching through the book, one finds Paul's letter to be extremely relevant today. In it we see our sinful nature. We see our redemption in Christ alone. We see the model of Christianity to which we strive to adhere.
I wonder if Paul knew how timeless his letter was when he wrote it...
3 comments:
"Us: Salvation can only be found in politics."
Could you help me understand what you mean by this? Would you be willing to expound?
Dan,
Sure thing. I think of Dr. Dobson, for one. See my blog post on SB200, for example. Dobson was so convinced about the importance of opposing a certain bill (i.e., winning a political battle) that he was willing to resort to distorting the truth and fear-mongering. And how many Christians have the false belief that Obama ranks right alongside Moses or Paul? (He's been president for what, 6 months now?)
Now that I have offended people in each major party equally, I hope you have a better understanding of what I was thinking. I do believe that political involvement is important, but politics can only do so much. It is not the source for our ultimate hope.
Oh Jon, I wasn’t offended. It was a good post. I especially liked your first point.
I read the post you mentioned back when you wrote it and was saddened. Because of my respect for the man I wondered was there anything else in the bill that would have caused him to say it. I figured however that there probably wasn’t. We cannot do this. Never mind the fact that he is not going to get away with it and will loose credibility, but we must all abide in truth.
Many times I’ve tried to write posts making a point that I thought was true and realize that I could not make the point without making a logically unsustainable leap from my research to my presupposed conclusions. Not to say that I haven’t failed in this respect but I can say it is always on my mind when I write, which is one of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned in blogging. It has also changed the way in which I listen to others, and read what they write.
Post a Comment