|
| Day 80 Part 1 The Gospel, Justification, and Death to Sin |
|
| |
The reading for day 80 was Romans 1:1-14:23.
I hardly know where to begin. There is probably enough in the first seven verses to keep me busy for weeks. I am breaking day 80 up into two parts.
The Gospel In the first seven verses Paul walks us through the gospel. Verse 1 gives us a view of God's election and consecration of Paul. Verse 2 speaks of the gospel being a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy/scripture. Verse 3 tells us that the gospel is Jesus and establishes His earthly claim to kingship. Verse 4 speaks of Christs deity (heavenly claim to kingship) and resurrection. Verse 5 tells us that it is through Jesus that we receive grace and through Jesus that the apostles have brought the faith to the gentiles. Verse 6 speaks of the election of the audience Paul was writing. Verse 7 says we are beloved of God and are saints. We have here, in seven verses, the whole gospel summarized. So when Paul says in verse 15, "So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" I think he was probably going to go into great detail about what he summarized in verses 1-7. This is the gospel that Paul was not ashamed of. I especially like verse 7; 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. What an amazing thought. We are beloved of God. I wish I knew how rich the word beloved is in the Greek. Anyone who knows is welcome to share it :-)
In verses 16-32 of chapter 1 we see the two sides of the impact of the gospel. 1. The salvation and righteousness of God is revealed (vs. 16-17). 2. The wrath of God is revealed (vs. 18-32).
Justification Chapter 2 begins Paul's discussion of justification in Christ through faith. Verses 12 and 13 say, "For all who sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified" (NASB). There is only One who ever did the whole Law. Only One can be justified. Paul here laid the groundwork for chapter 3 where he says, "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" (NASB 3:26). What does this mean? In verse 25 of chapter 3 we see what it means. God is just because He made Jesus the propitiation for our sin, thereby retaining His justice, and since, as Paul says in verse 22, all those who believe have the righteousness of Christ, He has justified us through His death. God is very clever isn't He? At one and the same time, God punished sin and showed mercy. He is so good to us. 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Death to Sin Verses 20 and 21 of chapter 5 say, "The Law came so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This leads us into chapter 6.
I want to start with verse 2. "How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (NASB). The interesting thing to me is that he immediately goes into baptism here. Verse 3 says, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?" We died to sin when we were baptized into Christ's death. "...our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin" (NASB vs. 6-7). The baptism referred to here must be effectual. Through this baptism we have died with Christ to sin so that we would be free from sin and we have been raised with Him in His resurrection. "Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." (note: I have to pick on infant baptism here for just a minute. Can we say that a baptized infant has died to sin? If you believe that this passage refers to water baptism, then you must believe that it is a regenerative act, based on the passage, i.e. dead to sin, alive to God)
There is so much here that deserves a fuller treatment. Hopefully someone better than I will be able to give it to you and hopefully you will read it for yourself as well.
|
|
| To add a comment to "Day 80 Part 1 The Gospel, Justification, and Death to Sin" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| August 27, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Zach wrote: "I have to pick on infant baptism here for just a minute. Can we say that a baptized infant has died to sin?" Sure, why not? Infants are models of conversion. 18:15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 18:17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." |
|
|
| August 27, 2007 |
 |
|
|
| Jam...I'm glad I can count on you for discussion ;-) I knew you wouldn't be able to resist jumping on that one. I knew from our last discussion that you would hold this view. However, I have some Presbyterian friends (and family) who say that they do not believe that infant baptism has regenerative effects. What I'm saying, is that if Paul here is referring to water baptism, then whoever has been baptized has died to sin and lives to Christ. In other words, they have been regenerated. Thats why I wanted to point this out. It forces us to take sides. Where there was ambiguity to me before, there is none now. This forces to either view water baptism as sacramental and salvific (as I'm sure you would have no problem with), or it makes us rethink what baptism means (as is the case for me...at least at this point). There doesn't seem to be any grey area anymore. |
|
|
| August 27, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Zach, Zach, Zach. Always gotta take the digs at us don't you! :) I wonder what your own thoughts on this are, how closely external baptism is tied to internal baptism. If you interpret the baptism in this verse as the internal baptism of the believer (therefore, all baptized are truly saved) then it becomes a point of view on whether this (the internal) happens before (credo) or after (paedo) the external water baptism.
Both of us hold that someone can be lost and be baptized. Even in your credobaptist hopes of a fully regenerated baptized body, you have to admit that people do make it in that aren't regenerate.
I think this discussion could go round and round till glory. I personally have not sided either side, although I am much less opposed to PB than I used to be. Interestingly enough, Piper and Grudem and Dever and Duncan and a whole host of other pastors are discussing the implications of PB and communion right now. It is very interesting how even among a bunch of CBs, there are many views re: PBs. |
|
|
| August 27, 2007 |
 |
|
|
The Reformed One wrote: "I wonder what your own thoughts on this are, how closely external baptism is tied to internal baptism." Which verses refer to "external baptism" and which ones refer to "internal baptism"? |
|
|
| August 29, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Just some thoughts on the difference between external baptism and internal baptism, of which it is difficult to find verses since the word "baptized" is used in both cases. It's interesting that by arguing some of these, I'll actually seem to be reinforcing Zach's argument against PB...
1) If baptism is the New Covenant form of circumcision, then we would have had to believe in circumcisional regeneration in the OT, meaning that almost everyone is saved today. (Jew, Muslim, Christian)
2) When John talks about those that went out from us in 1 John 2:19, it was the going out from them (their abandonment of faith) that proved they were not of the true faith. If their abandoning was what prove it, then we can safely assume that in every other aspect, they appeared like real Christians, meaning they were baptized. If they were baptized, and regenerated, they would not have gone out.
3) If the command "Repent and be baptized" was given, and repentence preceeds baptism, then they must have already been regenerate in order to repent. Repentence does not come from stony, dead hearts. It comes from living regenerated hearts.
4) God does not regenerate anyone that is not kept for salvation. There have been countless people that have been baptized but we can be 100% they were not finally saved. Not only in history, but present day. Regeneration means good fruit follows. I'm not talking about people that die in a period of backsliding, I'm talking about people that were baptized and not another minute of their existence showed any fruits of regeneration.
Now these are just a few thoughts. I'm sure you've heard them all before and can poke holes in them, but I submit them as my understanding as of now.
And if this has been discussed elsewhere (hasn't everything?), please provide the link, and I'll go follow the argument there. I'm sure this isn't what Zach had in mind for this blog. :)
Grace to you Barrett
|
|
|
| August 29, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Barret...we had a previous conversation here that will let you know where we are already coming from...I think that conversation might still be going on...
Josh...this conversation started before ours :-) |
|
|
| August 31, 2007 |
 |
|
|
This discussion is an enjoyable read -- really thought provoking -- never losing sight of your brotherhood!! ReformedOne, I especially appreciate your #4. And don't forget, often there is no external difference between authentic fruit of regeneration and counterfeit fruit (many will say Lord Lord did we not....).
Zach, I've got some reading to do, as in much of your 1-79. These have been really great, when I've had the time to read them. Perhaps your next series could be a read thru the Bible in 365 days?
 |
|
|
| August 31, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Mike...I think 365 blogs in as many days would be overwhelming :-) I would like some ideas of what to do when I'm finished with these though. There's really only 88 days worth of readings/blogs. The next blog (the 2nd part of day 80) will get to one of your favorite topics...freedom. Maybe you could read ahead :-) I think I'll be picking up in Romans 7.
As always...thanks for the comment! |
|
|
| August 31, 2007 |
 |
|
|
How about a verse-a-day blog through the Bible! With over 31,000 verses, this should take 85 years. Anyone up for it? You want expository blogging, you're going to get it! YES!!!
Even a chapter-a-day will take over 3 years. It is quite an undertaking, but I would definitely need an interleaf Bible for that. I think we'd all be surprised how much we will see if we took a whole day to ponder one chapter at a time. I think there is benefit to speed-reading through (in say, 30 days) or slowly reading through (in three years).
With 60 years ahead of me (God willing), I look forward to a lifetime of exploring God's Word. I think we must always remember to return to the Book, no matter how many other books we read in the meantime. I think the greatest thing we could work toward is to be a People of the Book.
I regret the days that I forsook the written Word in pursuit of experience. My thinking used to be that reading (and theology) would detract from my experience, but it has has only driven me deeper. Christians that forsake the reading of the Word in favor of the experience of the Spirit or the actions of Christ divorce three things that do not detract, but are meant to work together in a Trinitarian work on our souls. |
|
|
| August 31, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Good thoughts Barret, I was thinking of maybe doing a book of the Bible chapter by chapter to start. Verse by verse is something maybe a little farther down the line. I'm not sure I'm there yet :-) One thing I've learned is that it is almost impossible to go through just one section of scripture by itself. There is always another scripture that you have to read to understand the one you are reading :-) Let scripture interpret scripture right? |
|
|
| September 02, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Zach, Better hurry on starting that verse-by-verse... with 85 years till completion, it isn't something any of us should put off too long. Personally, I blame our parents. They should have started us on the verse-a-day reading plan immediately when we learned to read. :) I agree with you on referencing other Scripture. Too often, we can get tunnel vision. And the more we read, the more we'll think "I've read that somewhere else. What verse was that?" |
|
|
| September 04, 2007 |
 |
|
|
Barret, One verse a day when a child first learns to read is a good idea...I would add that they should probably memorize a verse per day. It wouldn't be long before they could quote entire chapters. |
|
|