The Plain Reading of Scripture

[Idolater]

I propose that the following is the plain reading of Romans 6 re sinning.

Ro 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? iow no. Don't “ continue in sin ”. Ro 6:4 ... we ... should walk in newness of life. iow don't “ continue in sin ”. Ro 6:5-6 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Don't “ continue in sin ”. Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. ... Ro 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Don't “ continue in sin ”. Ro 6:13 Neither yield ye your members [as] instruments of unrighteousness unto sin ... Don't “ continue in sin ”. Ro 6:15-16 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? iow no. Don't sin. Ro 6:17-19 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Don't sin. Ro 6:20-23 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Don't sin.

That's eight different times where Romans 6 tells individual members of the Body of Christ to not sin, through implication at least, if not directly. I think @Clete would agree with this reading, but I think @Nick M does not, and he thinks I'm a legalist because I read Romans 6 this way, which I find to be the plain reading.

 

[Derf]

The reply button formatted my reply to include your post, so 1. you would get a notification that I replied to your ppst, and 2. that I can address specific points in your post without confusion.

I don't see the gospels as integrated. Yet you use the word "different".

I'm trying to use the language of the thread and the concept being discussed. This is the difficulty in the plain meaning of anyone's writing, including scripture, since words have different meanings or nuance.

They are not the same.

I agree they may not be worded the same, but Paul doesn't usually repeat his own wording of "his gospel" the same way twice. That's why it is difficult to actually write out what Paul's gospel is in comparison to the others.

For instance Abraham's gospel is;
Gal_3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
You say Abraham's gospel is an "early rendition of Paul's gospel. Please compare them both.
Abraham's gospel; In thee shall all nations be blessed".
Paul's gospel;
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Do you think they look alike ?
They are different.

Yes, differentry words. The question is about the meaning of those words. For instance, HOW would the nation's be blessed through Abraham? Paul tells us in the prior and following verses:
Galatians 3:7-9 KJV — Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

"they which be of faith" does not mean the Israelites, but the Gentiles, since the Gentiles are the recipients of the blessing through or in Abraham.

Paul's gospel was distinct, not known before by men.

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

We are not those people whom Paul was writing about. We are Gentiles and Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.

Here's is what Paul quoted:
Galatians 3:8 KJV — ..., In thee shall all nations be blessed.
What do you think "nations" refers to? The word used is often translated "Gentiles", but also "nations" and sometimes "heathen". In fact, the same word appears earlier in the same verse, but translated "heathen" in the KJV, and...wait for it...as "Gentiles" in the NKJV.

[Gal 3:8 NKJV] 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, [saying], "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

So notice what Paul is saying. He is saying that Abraham was told something about the gospel Paul would be teaching, i.e., that the Gentiles (you and me) would be saved ("justified") by faith.

So it is a little shortsighted of you to say that the verse is not talking about us, when the verse twice uses the word for "Gentiles".

For you to be saved as a Gentile you need to believe the gospel given to Paul by Christ.

I agree. The question is whether this is different than the other gospels, for instance the angel's gospel to the shepherds. It was good news to the whole world (remember the wise men, Gentiles, who came to honor Him), but why? why was it good news that Jesus had been born? It was a promise kept from way back in the Garden of Eden, when the first gospel was preached to Adam and Eve, that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's seed's head. The serpent's "seed" is death. Jesus rose from the dead. We are promise resurrection from the dead, too, because of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is what I have believed, the gospel given to Paul by Christ. If you add, subtract from it, then you have believed in vain as Paul writes.

But if there are other parts of the scriptures that apply, and we limit our study to only what Paul writes about it, we are subtracting from the whole counsel of scripturr.

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

This is not my opinion, It is what God has written through our apostle Paul.

1Co_14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I'm not sure I understand why this is helpful to your position. I agree completely with the verse.

 

[Nick M]

That's eight different times where Romans 6 tells individual members of the Body of Christ to not sin,

And? We told you this.

 

[Nick M]

Saying it means what he (Paul) says, is easy, but if you ask ten Christians what it means, you'll probably get ten different answers. That word "reckon" throws people for a loop for some reason.

I agree. I think Paul said why he said it in the next chapter. He knows he can't do anything right. When examined from God's perspective.

 

[Clete]

I agree. I think Paul said why he said it in the next chapter. He knows he can't do anything right. When examined from God's perspective.

You certainly have the art of brevity down to a science!

 

[Nick M]

What I don't understand is how people, especially in Christianity and theology, will not move off a position despite the Scripture being clear. Sometimes it is more difficult, especially if the translation isn't right. Yet the context shows it. 2 Thessalonians 2 is a prime example. Christians cannot lose salvation, and those outside the faith are already lost. There is no falling away, rebellion, or apostasy, as we use the word now based on the old Greek. The context shows us even without Paul Felter and Bob Hill showing the Greek meaning.

 

[Clete]

What I don't understand is how people, especially in Christianity and theology, will not move off a position despite the Scripture being clear. Sometimes it is more difficult, especially if the translation isn't right. Yet the context shows it. 2 Thessalonians 2 is a prime example. Christians cannot lose salvation, and those outside the faith are already lost. There is no falling away, rebellion, or apostasy, as we use the word now based on the old Greek. The context shows us even without Paul Felter and Bob Hill showing the Greek meaning.

I’ve looked into this a lot. Admitting error does take humility. To say, “I’ve been wrong for decades,” is tough for just about anyone, but it’s mostly not about mere stubbornness.

Beliefs get tied to identity. People start by accepting what they’re taught, then learn to defend it, and eventually it becomes part of how they understand God, Scripture, and themselves. Once that happens, changing their mind gets much harder. Every year a belief stays in place, it gets more tangled up with other beliefs, relationships, memories, and decisions. You’re no longer just asking someone to reread a verse, you’re asking him to pull apart a whole framework he’s spent years building. The social cost of which can be huge. If someone’s life, including his family, friends, church, sometimes even his job, is wrapped up in a particular doctrine, then rejecting it can feel like rejecting his whole history and identity. For a pastor especially, admitting he taught something wrong for twenty years can mean losing his pulpit, income, reputation, friendships, perhaps even his own family. That’s a pretty high cliff to ask anyone to jump from.

There’s also just pure intellectual momentum and confirmation bias. Once you’ve defended a position for years, you get very good at seeing the evidence that fits it and not seeing, or explaining away, the rest. Theological systems can become almost self-sealing, where every verse is read through the system, and then that reading is offered as proof of the system. This is most clearly seen in Calvinism, where every word in the English language that has any religious connotation at all gets redefined to fit into and support the belief system.

This is one reason people sometimes make major changes when they’ve hit “rock bottom.” They’re suddenly in a place where they can see the results of their incorrect beliefs, and the cost-benefit ratio associated with changing their worldview becomes considerably more favorable. What once seemed too costly to reject may now seem too costly to keep.

Of course, none of this means everyone who disagrees is dishonest or afraid. Sometimes we’re the ones who are wrong, and sometimes a person turns out to be willing to change his mind regardless of the cost. The point here is just to say that pointing to a clear verse often changes far less than we expect because, from the other person’s point of view, you’re not just challenging his understanding of a passage, you’re challenging a piece of the world he’s lived in for most of his life.

 

[Derf]

I’ve looked into this a lot. Admitting error does take humility. To say, “I’ve been wrong for decades,” is tough for just about anyone, but it’s mostly not about mere stubbornness.

Beliefs get tied to identity. People start by accepting what they’re taught, then learn to defend it, and eventually it becomes part of how they understand God, Scripture, and themselves. Once that happens, changing their mind gets much harder. Every year a belief stays in place, it gets more tangled up with other beliefs, relationships, memories, and decisions. You’re no longer just asking someone to reread a verse, you’re asking him to pull apart a whole framework he’s spent years building. The social cost of which can be huge. If someone’s life, including his family, friends, church, sometimes even his job, is wrapped up in a particular doctrine, then rejecting it can feel like rejecting his whole history and identity. For a pastor especially, admitting he taught something wrong for twenty years can mean losing his pulpit, income, reputation, friendships, perhaps even his own family. That’s a pretty high cliff to ask anyone to jump from.

There’s also just pure intellectual momentum and confirmation bias. Once you’ve defended a position for years, you get very good at seeing the evidence that fits it and not seeing, or explaining away, the rest. Theological systems can become almost self-sealing, where every verse is read through the system, and then that reading is offered as proof of the system. This is most clearly seen in Calvinism, where every word in the English language that has any religious connotation at all gets redefined to fit into and support the belief system.

This is one reason people sometimes make major changes when they’ve hit “rock bottom.” They’re suddenly in a place where they can see the results of their incorrect beliefs, and the cost-benefit ratio associated with changing their worldview becomes considerably more favorable. What once seemed too costly to reject may now seem too costly to keep.

Of course, none of this means everyone who disagrees is dishonest or afraid. Sometimes we’re the ones who are wrong, and sometimes a person turns out to be willing to change his mind regardless of the cost. The point here is just to say that pointing to a clear verse often changes far less than we expect because, from the other person’s point of view, you’re not just challenging his understanding of a passage, you’re challenging a piece of the world he’s lived in for most of his life.

If a person has gone through that once already (like when he was first introduced to Calvinism, for instance) and then finds out he's wrong about that, too, it is perhaps doubly difficult.