Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Romans 1’ Category

Matthew vines

If you are familiar with Matthew Vines he is a young man that is a popular advocate for the idea that homosexuality is not a sin and is compatible with biblical Christianity.

As one response to Vines this post is on an MP3 audio recording of a message titled “Matthew Vines on Romans 1.”

Here’s the message’s description: “Looking at Gay Affirming advocate Matthew Vines and answering his view on Romans 1.”

(more…)

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

One woman sitting in church. The sun shines through the window to the left of the church.

Over at the liberal Huffington Post there’s an article titled “6 Things Christians Should Stop Saying To People Who Doubt” written yesterday by one of their associate editor name Carol Kuruvilla.  I’m struck at how many millennials are in the leadership and staff at Huff Po.  This girl just graduated college in 2011.  There’s nothing in of itself wrong with youth but I think sometimes their immaturity shows itself (note: I’m a Millennial myself).  In this particular piece the author wrote clearly what the intent of her post is:

here are 6 things I wish Christians would stop saying to people who are doubting their faith.

I’m sure some Christians can sometime say the wrong thing to those who doubt.  Some of the things mentioned in the article also made me cringe.  Though I cringe at time for different reasons than the reason the writer presented.  For the Christian the thing that’s most important is being biblical.  So in my post I want to biblically evaluate this Huff Po Religion piece.  I do so because she’s specifically targeting Christians and Christians must be biblical in how they engage with others.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Part 2: Can We Know God?

question theology foundation

Here in this third outline we will consider the question: “How has God revealed Himself?”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

71vUyFIRixL._SL1500_

This book is well researched. It provides a well balance view on both sides.  The authors are clear with the contents they represent when interacting for example, the different types of homosexual orientation.  For example, it is not only the deeds that are addressed, but also the desire for the same sex which is sinful.  One fascinating study which LGBT will consider antiquated is the civil law that pertains to death penalty for grave sins and the authors addresses it by discussing the role of the civil law.  This well-researched book will help readers, who are seeking to gain a deeper grasp of the issues at hand.

This book is a must read for all Christians who love and care for homosexuals.  It also deals with the discontinuity and continuity of the laws in the Old Testament and its perspective and implications on the high rank-and-file sin of homosexuality.  You will go into a theological excursion of the moral, ceremonial, and the civil law when the authors embark upon the Old Testament.  And it interacts with some of the deceiving tactics of the LGBT’s use of Scripture (eisegesis: imparting their own thoughts into the text). Anyone who twists the Word of God in order to make hard truths palatable to society stand in the hot seat of God’s judgment. In this book, you have examples of two men who are graced and granted by God the gift of teaching in order to smell out twisted thinking that spans categorical fallacies and heresies from not only the LGBT “movement” (a 900 pound gorilla that has a goal to destroy the church), but also those who profess faith in Christ.  The book’s truth claims are not based upon a hot and emotionally imbalanced rhetoric, but substance that has been mined over the years from a stable discipline of studying in the Word of God and its interaction with critical sources.  I would recommend you purchasing this book because it will get you acquainted with the arguments that is swirling around. This book will expose to you the information that is derived from the emotionally and subjective arguments that are based on man-centered theology rather than the serious study of God-honoring exegesis and hermeneutics.   You don’t have to be a Greek scholar, but as Christians, we can’t afford to be sloppy or careless (2 Tim. 2:15) with this issue facing our nation.

I pray that this wonderful resource will provide the gateway for you to learn more about this issue and get more acquainted with the passages that the LGBT twist to their own demise.

Also have a Bible handy because the authors will be interacting extensively with the Book of the Leviticus and the Book of Romans.  The book will also stretch out your understanding of the law of God.  That is a major point of the book when discussing the Book of Leviticus and its implications upon the New Testament text.  I believe you will come out a sharper student of the Word when reading the author’s interaction with the biblical text.

Book: AMAZON

Read Full Post »

Every year my favorite speaker for the Shepherd’s Conference is Al Mohler.  I am thankful for this man of God.

Al Mohler

 

Here’s my notes from the evening message that Dr. Mohler gave on March 7th during the Shepherd’s Conference for 2014:

We are here because of John MacArthur’s preaching expositionally.

Introduction

Look at Romans 1:16-32

There are some passages of the text that is touchstone text that you turn to again and again.

By the time this letter was written, Jews and Gentiles are in the church in the city of Rome.

ROMANS 1:16-17

When we read Romans 1:16 too quickly we miss the wonderfulness of this truth.

Why did he mention “ashamed”?  Remember the Greco-Roman culture that has a high view of honor and shame.

Romans 1:16 is the foundation of which we stand: It explains the Gospel, explain the people of the Covenant of God

It’s like Romans 1:16-17 we have two volumes of biblical theology of justification.

But we see Romans 1:18 as well.

If we authentically preaching the Gospel we will also give the bad news!  The wrath of God is revealed already—in the mirror, the news and all around us.

The end of Romans 1:18 is so important, it reveals a universal conspiracy of humanity of suppressing the truth.

You don’t understand the fall until you understand the fall unless you understand the noetic effect of the fall

Noetic effect of sins is an epistemic sin, a sin intellectual in nature

Note the rational, intellectual acts from Romans 1:18 onwards

The problem is not with revelation but the preciever:  It’s not we cannot but we will not see what is right before our eyes

Noetic effects explain why we forget things, why we don’t see life is one perfect logic and why we see things wrongfully

Again, suppression of Truth is important; it is important to understand who we are, why people won’t come to salvation and human intellectual endeavor

It is suppressed in unrighteousness

Where does this all leads?

We have two things said three times

1.) Exchange (v.23, v.25, v.26-27)

  • There has never been people who came over in confession of being guilty of being an “exchanger…”
  • What does it mean to exchange of God?
  • An exchange for a horrifying idol
  • An exchange for a lie
  • An exchange for a natural function
  • This here is an argument from lesser to the greater, it is progressive:  horrifying idolàlieàunnatural function.
  • Paul wants us to show us that the final exchange is the existence of homosexuality
  • But we must be careful here:  Paul is speaking here of all humanity and holding a picture of “them,” but rather we are talking about ourselves!
  • Humans are all involved, but playing a game of “I won’t call your sins sins, if you don’t call my sins sins.”
  • Think of social effort of intellectually excusing sin via psychological models, etc; think of political effort for homosexuality, etc
  • We also mis-read nature: Is/Ought fallacy; also don’t forget about things as they are because it’s a fallen world!
  • Don’t forget we commit these exchanges
  • We must be thankful that sin doesn’t have full reign and that natural revelation restrain even sinners

2.) God gave them over (v.24, 26, 28)

  • Here we see God is pro-active in giving us over to the identity that we want for our sins
  • We must remember we can commit noetic, epistemological but also hermeneutical and homiletical sins
  • Some say that God giving over means we have no more hope; but there is hope in the Gospel
  • We do ourselves a disservice when we preach what is sins and the sins of others but we need to see that it is everyone
  • It is God’s special revelation that reveal to us

Read Full Post »

Scott Oliphint apologist

Dr. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary taught for a Sunday School at Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church in September 2013.

The context of this teaching by Oliphint is to see what Paul says about unbelief in Romans, and how this has implication towards apologetics, counseling, evangelism and one’s view of oneself.

Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

Recently on a page that has a lot of Van Tillians in the group, I saw a question originally addressed towards someone else on a page :

Regarding Romans 1 and Psalm 19:1. Do you think the evidential approach merges here with the pressup. much in the way WOTM teaches?

This got me thinking.  This is my short response:

If I could share my thoughts on these two texts. I do not believe Romans 1 and Psalms 19:1 necessitates the Evidential school of apologetic. Closer examination of both these passages reveal Scripture’s teaching on general revelation of Himself to all people, but note that both passages never state that the knowledge of God is acquired and mediated through arguments FROM General revelation BUT instead it appears that this general revelation of God’s existence is immediate (that is, apart from it being channeled through an argument and therefore prior to any argument as well) and universal in scope (nonbelievers of the Gospel and believers of the Gospel); Romans 1 builds upon the universal knowledge of God found in Psalm 19 by stating that God’s wrath is built up against everyone (1:18), thereby everyone is culpable because of His general revelation of himself and dare I even say apart from knowing the three steps of the Kalam Cosmological argument, or Aquainas’ five ways, or the Liar, Lord, Lunatic argument, which not everyone in every age, location, class and standing would be aware of. I think the theological truths from Psalms 19 and Romans 1 [that man has an immediate knowledge of God (without it being mediated through rigorous chains of arguments), that he suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18) to such an extent that he will adopt an alien philosophy of evidence that would rule out Christianity] would necessitate an apologetic that goes beyond the Traditional Evidentalist approach of feeding them more evidence, because “facts” is not the issue…it’s their presuppositions that determines what can qualitfy as “facts” that the Christian apologist is obligated to address in any rational discourse with an unbeliever. Any apologetics methodology that does not start with the non-believers being morally culpable and working with the realization that a nonbeliever is not totally honest in their claims of not believing in the existence of the True God is already heading towards the wrong direction in my estimation, and we cannot just naiively feed them evidences thinking it will work when they have set themselves up as the judge of facts when they have such a flawed worldview that is epistemologically, metaphyically, and ethically problematic.

Read Full Post »