Theology Club: SaulToPaul and the Epistle to the Romans

[musterion]

Perhaps they were like Apollos was before he heard Priscilla and Aquila. Called but not yet established in the Body.

And that is exactly where the whole In/Out controversy has always left me cold. All such are referred to as saints of God and counted as His own in Christ, so I've never seen a reason to take the time to decide which position is true. I can't even see where coming to a decision either way would possibly impact my daily walk in the Lord anyway. So I avoid it. God knows (and knew) those who are His; all are either in Christ or in Adam and that's really all I need to know, you know?

That is in no way aimed at you or what you wrote, or at anyone else. It's just me.

 

[glorydaz]

And that is exactly where the whole In/Out controversy has always left me cold. All such are referred to as saints of God and counted as His own in Christ, so I've never seen a reason to take the time to decide which position is true. I can't even see where coming to a decision either way would possibly impact my daily walk in the Lord anyway. So I avoid it. God knows those who are His; all are either in Christ or in Adam and that's really all I need to know, you know?

That is in no way aimed at you or what you wrote, or at anyone else. It's just me.

I know exactly what you mean. Since not even Paul could see into the hearts of man, it just seems a little strange when I hear he was only writing to the saved OR the unsaved as the case may be. I sincerely doubt there would be any group anywhere that would fit either bill. I can't help but think Paul always covered all his bases and that's why he preached as he did. Most preachers speak to the whole congregation as if they were saved....until they get to the altar call maybe. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, that is true in most congregations.

But it is not safe to assume that none of those in the church at Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to them were saved. In fact, that idea is so ludicrous that anyone who will believe that will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Might be as "ludicrous" as your claim that they were all saved. :chuckle:

 

[heir]

SaulToPaul said that none of these people in the church at Rome were already saved because they hadn't yet believed the gospel of Christ. Therefore, if he is right then Paul would know that none of them were saved. If that is true then he would never write these words to a group of people he knew to be unsaved:

You are being deliberately obtuse! No one is a member of the Body of Christ unless and until they have heard the gospel of Christ and trusted the Lord believing it! Anyone who reads Romans 1 can see that the Romans were called to be saints (Romans 1:7 KJV) and there was a need for them to hear and believe the gospel that was the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth and certainly that was what was driving Paul to see them (Romans 1:9-17 KJV)!

And of course, Romans contains Body doctrine! Much of what Paul conveyed to the Romans was before mystery! Why wouldn’t he tell them? Do you really expect that he would withhold it from them? And why would he? How would it be for you if you believed the who of Jesus Christ, that God raised Him from the dead, were keeping the law, but those with whom you had a standing had fallen and you were in danger of being cut off yourself unless you continued in the goodness of God and the person who was responsible/committed to tell you (1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV) wrote to you and skipped all of the glorious truths that came with believing that gospel/ his report? You wouldn’t know who you are in Christ as a result of believing the gospel of Christ and would be susceptible of being tossed to and fro and carried about with the winds of doctrine.

We can see Paul sharing with the Ephesians (already saved "to the saints") to whom he wrote the letter and had not met, the details as a result of their trusting Christ as those who first trusted. I'd expect nothing different from Paul than to keep back nothing that was profitable unto the Romans.

 

[musterion]

I know exactly what you mean. Since not even Paul could see into the hearts of man, it just seems a little strange when I hear he was only writing to the saved OR the unsaved as the case may be. I sincerely doubt there would be any group anywhere that would fit either bill. I can't help but think Paul always covered all his bases and that's why he preached as he did. Most preachers speak to the whole congregation as if they were saved....until they get to the altar call maybe. :chuckle:

EGGS-ZACKLY!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Might be as "ludicrous" as your claim that they were all saved.

All those to whom Paul addressed the epistle were in fact saved:

"...to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints; Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ!...For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Ro.1:7,11).​

The epistle was addressed to the "saints" in the church at Rome. Every single one of them were saved.

If we are to believe that your ideas are correct then we must throw our reason to the wind and imagine that Paul wanted to see these unsaved people so that he could impart some "spiritual gift" upon them.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Anyone who reads Romans 1 can see that the Romans were called to be saints (Romans 1:7 KJV) and there was a need for them to hear and believe the gospel that was the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth and certainly that was what was driving Paul to see them (Romans 1:9-17 KJV)!

No, they were not "called to" be saints because they were already saints:

...to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints; Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ!...For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Ro.1:7,11).​

And of course, Romans contains Body doctrine! Much of what Paul conveyed to the Romans was before mystery! Why wouldn’t he tell them? Do you really expect that he would withhold it from them? And why would he?

If the people who made up the church at Rome were not saved, as you imagine, then they would remain natural men and would not be able to understand the things contained in the Bible:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​

According to your ideas Paul knew that those in Rome could not understand the things of the Spirit of God but yet he filled his epistle up to them with things of the Spirit of God!

As usual, your ideas make no sense whatsoever.

How would it be for you if you believed the who of Jesus Christ, that God raised Him from the dead, were keeping the law, but those with whom you had a standing had fallen and you were in danger of being cut off yourself unless you continued in the goodness of God and the person who was responsible/committed to tell you (1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV) wrote to you and skipped all of the glorious truths that came with believing that gospel/ his report? You wouldn’t know who you are in Christ as a result of believing the gospel of Christ and would be susceptible of being tossed to and fro and carried about with the winds of doctrine.

Since those in the church at Rome knew the who of Jesus Christ they were already "born of God":

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).​

Perhaps you will argue that even though those who believed those truths were "born of God" at the same time they were not saved?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Hi and IF we believe that Paul was saved by Grace in Acts 9:6 and if Paul was the FIRST / PROTO SAVED in 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 and then Paul was the FIRST one to enter the Body of Christ and the Dispensation of Grace BEGAN in Acts 9:6 !!

dan p

Hi Dan P,

It is true that Paul was the first saved by grace, and the first in the Body, the prototype for all that followed.

But, the dispensation of the grace of God is for YOU Gentiles. Paul was not a Gentile.

Let me try to demonstrate. Paul was sent initially to Jews and to Gentiles who were in the promises. You can see that here:

Acts 13
26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.


The dispensation of the grace of God is specifically for Gentiles who were aliens from Israel, strangers from the promises, and without hope and without God in the world.

The dispensation of the grace of God is for Gentiles such as these:


28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.


Do you see the difference?


:e4e:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I've been doing a lot of reading up on the 28 position. One thing I get from them, either implied or stated outright, is that Paul himself must be rightly divided; meaning a lot of the content from his earlier epistles cannot be taken as doctrine for us today. The point: they can correct me on this but I have never seen Heir or STP take anything that even resembles such a position on, say, Romans, Galatians or 1 Thess. If my read on them is right, then any such comparison to 28 for its own sake is simply not necessary. Even if you mean it in jest, it's not always coming across that way.

That is an interesting point, Musty, thank you!

Yes, sister heir and I do believe that all of Romans-Philemon is for the Body of Christ. However, there are some people who are in the first six books who are not like us.

Galatians
Romans
1 and 2 Thess
1 and 2 Cor

And, we have to consider that at the time these were written the gospel of Christ was still to the Jew first. Sign gifts were still operational, for the sake of the Jew. Certain customs were followed for the sake of the Jew, and so forth.

With the last 7 books,

Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 and 2 Tim
Titus
Philemon

These things are no longer the case. It is no longer to the Jew first, and so on.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And that is exactly where the whole In/Out controversy has always left me cold.

One reason we emphasize that these Romans, though called to be saints, and believers in the Lord Jesus, were not yet in the Body is that it explains the Olive Tree. And I believe it is the reason the Lord words chapter 1 the way he does.

Whether they were saved yet or not, the Romans letter is full of Body doctrine!

 

[musterion]

One reason we emphasize that these Romans, though called to be saints, and believers in the Lord Jesus, were not yet in the Body is that it explains the Olive Tree. And I believe it is the reason the Lord words chapter 1 the way he does.

Whereas actual Acts 28ers say it's because Paul was a literal minister of the N.C. to Israel fully as Israel, right up to the end of Acts...hence the olive tree reference smack in the middle of his whole mini-treatise of ch. 9 through 11, correct?

(I belabor this important distinction for the benefit of others)

 

[musterion]

Yes, sister heir and I do believe that all of Romans-Philemon is for the Body of Christ. However, there are some people who are in the first six books who are not like us.

Galatians
Romans
1 and 2 Thess
1 and 2 Cor

And, we have to consider that at the time these were written the gospel of Christ was still to the Jew first. Sign gifts were still operational, for the sake of the Jew. Certain customs were followed for the sake of the Jew, and so forth.

With the last 7 books,

Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 and 2 Tim
Titus
Philemon

These things are no longer the case. It is no longer to the Jew first, and so on.

100% agreed, and one need not be Acts 28 to do so. I add the yellow only to point out what we already know: that Paul himself, in a sense, was at that time one of those folks, too. That sometimes gets overlooked when people backfill into Paul's earlier letters what apparently were later revelations...I confess I used to do it myself and so am still trying to work these things out in my own understanding.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

100% agreed, and one need not be Acts 28 to do so. I add the yellow only to point out what we already know: that Paul himself, in a sense, was at that time one of those folks, too. That sometimes gets overlooked when people backfill into Paul's earlier letters what apparently were later revelations...I confess I used to do it myself and so am still trying to work these things out in my own understanding.

Yes, and we believe:

Those in the first group were heirs according to the promise.
Those in the second group are fellowheirs by the gospel.

The twain are One in the same Body.

 

[Danoh]

STP, re your post # 68, consider that when Paul was saved in Acts 9, the Spirit had already concluded Israel "UNcircumcised in heart and ears," Acts 7:51, and Paul with them, Acts 7:58, 1 Tim. 1:13.

This, in light of Matt. 12:30-32; John 5:46; Acts 7:53; 1 Thess. 2: 16; Rom. 2: 25, 28, 29; and so on.

In short, Israel was now Uncircumcision, no better off then a Gentile, Rom. 3:9; Rom. 11:11; Rom. 11: 32.

Per Romans 15:20-21, it was not Paul's place to preach to, or build upon another man's foundation.

Meaning, in Acts 13, those Paul preaches to were not only not part of the Little Flock; Acts 3: 24-26, but were both now all without hope and without God in the world with - "them that were nigh" Eph. 2:17.

Both now without hope, but for Paul's gospel; Israel's Promise having been shut down (let me know if I communicated that clearly or not), Rom. 11:23-29.

Paul was a Jew but lost in UNcircumcision, spiritually, for he had blasphemed the Spirit (see above passages).

He could now be saved only by - the very same gospel - "of the Uncircumcision" - he was then sent out to "preach among the Gentiles," Gal. 2:2, 7, 8, 9.

He preached this very same gospel to the Jews, Acts 9:15; Romans 1: 16; 11:13-14; "the heathen" of Gal. 2:9.

According to the passages I cited after Israel's fall, the phrase "the Circumcision" at times refers to those of the Little Flock, as in Acts 10:45, or those of Israel, when Paul uses the phrase in a negative sense, as in Titus 1:10.

This is the standard Acts 9 Position, by the way...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Danoh the Great,

You are correct. As of Acts 7, unbelieving Israel was ripe to be immediately cast away and judged, as Stephen saw the LORD standing!

But God...

God saved his worst enemy and showed him grace. Instead of immediately casting Israel away, the entire timeframe of Acts was an extended time of promise for them. For God knew that a remnant of them would believe Paul.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh the Great,

You are correct. As of Acts 7, unbelieving Israel was ripe to be immediately cast away and judged, as Stephen saw the LORD standing!

But God...

God saved his worst enemy and showed him grace. Instead of immediately casting Israel away, the entire timeframe of Acts was an extended time of promise for them. For God knew that a remnant of them would believe Paul.

No. Their promise was no longer. They were now Lo Ami.

Now it was to the Jew first, not to Israel as a nation, as in Acts 3.

Brother, just so you know; I have no issue with you and or yours.

You and yours are some of my favorite people on TOL.

I have fought tooth and nail with one supposedly our own, whenever they have attempted to belittle any of you in any way, shape or form.

That out of the way, I know your above view as to Israel's promise is what you assert.

My own, strong understanding of the standard Acts 9 Hermeneutic, together with, as well as, a result of, my being able to quickly pick up on things through their recurrent patterns and what those patterns point back to, allows me to easily see where you are coming from.

What I see when I take on your approach as if my own (which the study of things through their recurrent patterns allows) - what I see when I take on your approach as if my own, is that your basic approach greatly differs in key respects.

As a result, its no surprise our conclusions will also.

What I see coming back out from looking at things from within your view is that what you assert not based on the standard Acts 9 Hermeneutic.

That is what I see. I don't love any of you guys any less for it.

All respect to you STP.

In the spirit of Eph. 4:16.

 

[heir]

No, they were not "called to" be saints because they were already saints:

Stop correcting the KJB and correct your thinking to line up with it instead (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV).

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Stop correcting the KJB and correct your thinking to line up with it instead (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV).

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Here is the meaning given by Vine's: "In Rom 1:7; 1 Cr.1:2 the meaning is 'saints by calling'" (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

So these people's sainthoods did not remain in the future because they were already "saints."

Now let us look at this translation from the KJV:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor.1:; KJV).​

One becomes a saint when he is "sanctified in Christ Jesus," so these who are said to be "called to be saints" are already saints by calling.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What I find interesting, besides everyone being in a severe state of confusion but YOU, is that you have such a simplistic idea of why Paul wrote his letter in the first place....

Once again you quickly change the subject in the hope that no one will notice that you did not even attempt to answer what I said in regard to your remarks here:

You don't see that part "if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you..." Does that sound like Paul thinks the Spirit of God does dwell in every listener? And please tell me how Paul is able to see that every reader has the Spirit dwelling in them. He has already explained about false brethren....he knows they exist, doesn't he?

The words in "bold" make up a first class conditional statement:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

This is a simple explanation as to how Paul was using that conditional statement:

"The first class condition indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The normal idea, then, is if--and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument--then...." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 690).​

SaulToPaul said that none of these people in the church at Rome were already saved because they hadn't yet believed the gospel of Christ. Therefore, if he is right then Paul would know that none of them were saved. If that is true then he would never write these words to a group of people he knew to be unsaved:

"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you...For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Ro.8:8-9,15-17).​

It is impossible that Paul would say that to a group of people who he thought were unsaved.

And of course you just run and hide from these facts.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is true that Paul was the first saved by grace, and the first in the Body, the prototype for all that followed.

No, it is not true. We can see that Abraham was saved by grace:

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt" (Ro.4:4).​

We can also see that Peter was also saved by grace:

"We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (Acts 15:11).​