Conference yukon::christian_v7

Romans 5:1  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ: 
  2  By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, 
and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 
  3  And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that 
tribulation worketh patience; 
  4  And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 
  5  And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in 
our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 
  6  For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the 
ungodly. 
  7  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a 
good man some would even dare to die. 
  8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet 
sinners, Christ died for us. 
  9  Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
wrath through him. 
 10  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of 
his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 
 11  And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
by whom we have now received the atonement. 
 12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; 
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 
 13  (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when 
there is no law. 
 14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had 
not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of 
him that was to come. 
 15  But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the 
offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by 
grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 
 16  And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment 
was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto 
justification. 
 17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which 
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in 
life by one, Jesus Christ.) 
 18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all 
men unto justification of life. 
 19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the 
obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 
 20  Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin 
abounded, grace did much more abound: 
 21  That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. 


Number of occurances of search:   -  21.

>    Can someone with a Bible Post Romans 5 so we can discuss it in context?

Of course, if we want to discuss Romans 5 in context, we need more than just 
Romans 5.  We need the rest of the Bible as well.

Said sort of with a :-), but then again said in utter seriousness.

Paul

    Actually before Patricia asked I had extracted this text and was in the
    process of reading it.  For me, my Bible studies are simple and
    somewhat timely.  I will stay on one chapter for several weeks oftimes
    into months reading that chapter typically once a week or more.  I've
    found my "meditating" this way on scripture helps my study immensely.
    
    Having said that at first glance..
    
    Romans 5:1 covers the rest of the chapter:
    
    Romans 5:1  Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God
    through our Lord Jesus Christ:
    
    Only an individual chooses to have faith.  This is not universally
    distributed.
    
    Nancy

    good point Nancy.
    
    verse 18 does nothing to contradict other verses which state that
    Christ died for all.  He freely offer everyone His free gift of
    salvation.  If you read the verse right before this (vs 17), it is
    stated that there is a receiving involved.  This chapter parrallels
    Eph 2:8-9 very closely.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing 

RE:                       <<< Note 656.4 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>
  



 >                 -< Christ Offers His free gift to all >-

    
      It is a gift (Romans 6:23) and like any gift that is offered,
      one cannot use it unless they accept the gift.  I can say "Bing,
      I have this book I wish to give you as a gift"..but, you need to
      accept it or it is of no use to you.


      Just like salvation..its offered to all, but some reject the gift,
      thus they miss the blessings that were in the gift..




 Jim

RE:         <<< Note 656.6 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

       
   > For me it is not helpful to compare the passage with Ephesians since I
   > don't believe Paul wrote Ephesians and I believe Ephesians was written
   > later than this passage.
    

     Romans 6:23 "...but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus  
                     Christ our Lord"

     Ephesians 2 "...we are saved by grace through faith..."

    What is grace?  God's unmerited favor...a free gift..


   
     Jim

      re: .2
    
      A hearty AMEN to your reply!!!
    
                                         Tony

    
    I haven't read hardly any of this string yet but just wanted to 
    caution everyone about something.  Since 5:1 starts with therefore
    it would imply that Paul was already in the middle of making his
    point.  You might want to go back a little further too.  Just a
    suggestion.
    
    Jill

 Exactly...Romans is one book that should be studied without the chapter
 deliniations (sp?)



Jim

Romans 5:19  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by 
the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 


 Note this verse in Romans 5 says that MANY (not all) will be made righteous
 by the obedience of one (Jesus Christ).




 Jim

Introduction to Romans(To put the passage in its literary and Historic
   setting)
    
    
    The book of Romans is the longest letter  written by Paul and it has few
    literary issues. There is no dispute about authorship or dating.  It was
    written between 54 and 58 from Corinth.  The Roman church was a strong
    Christian church which Paul had not founded and never visited.  Paul
    planned to visit Jerusalem, present the collection funds, and then proceed
    to  Rome on the way to Spain.  

    The purpose of the letter is not universally agreed:  it seems likely that
    it was intended as a letter of introduction from Paul to the Romans
    soliciting support for his missionary activities in Spain and elsewhere. 
    The letter carefully states Paul's theology of Christ.  Almost the entire
    letter is theological in nature, with little personal or historic 
    information.  The two literary issues with the letter is that the concluding
    chapter 16 may not have been part of the  original letter and 16:25-27 may
    be an additional fragment

   Romans 5 18-21  (Third Section of Romans Five)  NSRV
   
   
Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all
   one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
   
For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, 
   by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.  
   
But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; 
   but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 
   
so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, 
   grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal
   life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Patricia, what version of the Bible is this?
       
>Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all
>   one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
    
    This is the KVJ
   
     18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
    condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
    upon all men unto justification of life.
    
    I'd say there is BIG difference between these two verses, wouldn't you?
    

   The Exegisis I did last May was specifically on Romans 5 18-21
   
   I will start with that section relating it to the rest of Romans 5 and to
   Romans as a whole.  I do make some comparisons between Romans, Corinthians,
   and Philipians.   These are four of the Epistles for which there is almost
   Universal Agreement that they were written by Paul.
   
                        Patricia
   
   

    Patricia before you go any further, can you please answer my .14?
    
    For me, I see a whole theology being based on a verse that appears to
    be lacking Truth in its entirety.
    
    Nancy
    

Nancy, I think Patricia's note said it was the NRSV - New Revised 
Standard Version.  I'm not sure I really detected a difference in meaning,
between the two transalations.   (although there was certainly a difference
in words!)  Can you explain what you see as the differences in meaning?

For reference, I'll include some other versions of the same passage in the
next note.

Leslie

PS.  I'll try and say what I think it means as well in another note.

    Nancy,
    
    Patricia put "NRSV" on her note. So she's doubtless using the New
    Revised Standard Version. (Probably most folks know my feelings about
    the [New] Revised Standard - not one of your better translations.)
    
    	BD�

    I see Leslie and I collided.
    
    I also echo Leslie's remarks about there not seeming to be a big
    different between KJV and NRSV anyway. (No point in starting another
    version war when it's unnecessary.) The essence behind the verse is
    that Jesus is the One who enables our justification. Of course, the
    (entire) Biblical doctrine of salvation also tells us that although the
    offer of salvation through Jesus is *offered* to all, not all will
    accept the offer.
    
    	BD�

    NASB:
    17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the
    one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift
    of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
    18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation
    to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted
    justification of life to all men.
    19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made
    sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made
    righteous.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Living Bible (Paraphrase)
    17 The sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to be king over all, but
    all who will take God's gift of forgiveness and acquittal are kings of
    life because of this one man, Jesus Christ.
    18 Yes, Adam's sin brought punishment to all, but Christ's
    righteousness makes men right with God, so that they can live.
    19 Adam caused many to be sinners because he disobeyed God, and Christ
    cause many to be made acceptable to God because he obeyed.

    (Maybe I should combine all my thoughts into one note...)
    
    I think I see your concern, Nancy. The more reputable versions talk
    about the *gift* being offered to all, whereas the NRSV omits that
    significant word and makes it seem that justification is granted (not
    merely "offered") to all. Still no need to start a version war, since
    the granting of the gift and its non-universal acceptance is clearly
    taught elsewhere in Scripture.
    
    	BD�

>>   Romans 5 18  (Third Section of Romans Five)  NSRV <oops, I mentally read
>>   NRSV the first time around - what is the NSRV, Patricia?>
   
>>Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all
>>   one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.
   

KJV:
   
>>     18  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
>>    condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
>>    upon all men unto justification of life.

For the following, I'm including verse 19 as well, because I think these two
verses are best looked at together:
    
NIV:

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men,
so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings 
life for all men.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, 
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

NAS:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men,
even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life 
to all men.

For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so
through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

REB:

It follows then, that as the result of one misdeed was condemnation for all
people, so the result of one righteous act is acquittal and life for all.

For as through the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so through
the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.

JNT:

In other words, just as it was through one offence that all people came under
condemnation, so also it is through one righteous act that all people come to
be considered righteous.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the other man, many will be made righteous.

Leslie

    RSRV is a dyslexic version of NRSV.  
    
    I don't see the difference in the translations.
    
    THe first step in exegisis is in establishing an accurate translation.
    I agree with that first step.

    re .19
    
    Actually there are verses within Romans that justify the doctrine of
    Predestination.  God will choose who he will and only those whom he
    chooses for salvation are offered the free gift.  So we have at least
    three possibilities for meaning.
    
    1.  God chooses some for Salvation.  To them is given the free Gift of
    salvation.  There is no human freedom.  To some is offered.  Those
    offered accept.
    
    2.  God chooses all to offer salvation.  Some accept.  Some refuse to
    accept.  
    
    3.  God Chooses all to offer salvation.  Some accept immediately.  Some
    take much longer to accept.  All ultimately accept the free gift.
    
    
    Are there other alternatives?
    
    Does anyone in here agree with the first alternative?
    Anyone else in here agee with the third alternative?
    
    

    
    
    
    
    (As a good Feminist Theologian I start by defining my Assumptions and
    Motivation)
    
     I choose the text Romans 5: 18-21 because it supports Channings belief in
     God's goodness to all women, men and children and supports Universal
     salvation of every person. In this verses Paul clearly states that
     just as all men are condemned by the disobedience of Adam, so also all
     men are saved by the obedience of Christ.  Sin is separation from God. It
     is alienation, isolation, and lack of real connectedness to God and
     other human beings.  It is our human attempt to find meaning in our own
     secular existence without reference to a power outside of ourselves. 
     In good times this might appear to work, but eventually all humans
     confront situations of grief, loss, death, mortality, addiction,
     compulsive behaviors in which life becomes meaningless without a
     spiritual connection.  As humans each of us has little control over the
     essential elements of our lives.  We do not control when we are born or
     when we die, whether we are healthy or ill.  We do not control who our
     parents are, what culture and sociological environment we are born into.
     We have little control over our relationships, our addictions, our losses:
     without a spiritual connectedness our lives are meaningless.  We accept
     God's grace when we recognize that a power greater than ourselves can 
    restore us to sanity and we are entirely willing to allow this power to
     restore meaning

.    From there recovery(salvation) is possible through a heeling higher power
    (Grace).  The power of Christ(The incarnation of Goddess/God in human
    relationships) is central to this conversion process.  
    
     Those who accept Goddess/God into their lives, display an ability to love
     their neighbors as themselves.  This allows them to be instruments of God
     in bringing recovery to those who are separated.  No human can be fully
     human without the love of other humans.  The Christ principle is the 
    spirit of love within humanity.  The first time a counselor, a pastor, a
     sponsor, or a friend, reach out to a addicted person, the miracle of love
     has an opportunity to begin its work.  These are the moderns terms that I
     use to comprehend Paul and to comprehend Romans 5:18-21.   Christ is God's
     power incarnate in humanity, Grace is the gift of God's love, displayed in 
    unselfish human love.  Sin is our human attempt to find meaning separate
     from God and separate from loving communities.  Universal Salvation means
     that God's love is available here on earth to every man, woman, and child.

Exegesis
    
    My passage is part of the first half of the letter(Chapters 1-8) where
    Paul's theology is carefully stated. 
    
    Literary Style. 
    
    The literary style of this passage itself and this passage as a part of
    Romans 5 is striking  and powerful. Chapter five is divided into three
    major sections each starting with the word "Therefore".  
    
     1-11 discuss the theme of Justification, 
    12-17 sets up the Adam, Christ analogy, and
    18-21 restates the Adam, Christ analogy.   
    
    Each of the four verses of the passage contain a tight parallel  structure.
    Verses 18, 19, and 21 use the words "just as" and "so" as separators.
    Verses 18 and 19 contrast  the disobedience or sinfulness of Adam to
    the obedience or righteousness of Christ. 
    
    Therefore just as one  man's trespass led to condemnation for all 
    	so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life
    
    For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners,
    	so by  the one  man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
    
    Verse 21 uses a similar   "just as" "so"  structure  to contrast
    	between sin leading to death and grace leading to life.
     
    Just as sin exercised dominion in death,  
    so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to
      eternal life through Jesus  Christ our Lord 
    
    Verse 20 uses the connectors "But" and "but where"  to show the
    relationship of law to  trespass and sin to grace. 
    
    But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied;
    but where sin  increased, grace abounded all the more,
    
    
    Theological Interpretation.
    
     Theologically, this passage infers two 
    points that are critical to Unitarian Universalism.  One, that every
    human is saved, and two, that Christ is  fully human. This passage
    infers these two points through its tight parallelism.  The words "for
    all" are  very clear.  All men are made sinners through one man's act
    of Disobedience and all men are justified  through one man's act of
    obedience.  Likewise where the many were made sinners, the many will
    also be  made righteous. The statement clearly affirms the Universalist
    principle that God's love is for all  humankind. If where sin abounded,
    grace abounded all the more, then obviously grace is more powerful 
    than sin.  If God originally created all men in the likeness of Adam,
    good and holy and by the trespass of  Adam, all men were made sinners,
    then for God's Grace to be more powerful than  sin, everyone impacted 
    by Adam's trespass has to be more impacted by God's Grace.  I agree
    with Barrett when he says "Man's  rebellion cannot be victorious, or
    God would not be God" (>C.K. Barrett, Commentary on the Epistle to the 
    Romans) and with Erasmus when he says "the kindness of God is so bestowed
    that all the sins of all people  which now have been heaped up and
    firmly established are at once abolished by the death of 
    Christ" (Collected Works of Erasmus, Ed. Robert Sider(Toronto, U of
    Toronto Press, 1984)  However to  truly grasp this argument, we must
    reckon how all men participate in Adam's sin and in Christ's act of 
    righteousness.  William Barclay's argument is convincing  although his
    conclusion is not.  Barclay  provides a sociological understanding of
    Ancient man's self identification not as  an individual but as part  of
    a group (William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans, (Philadelphia,
    Westminister Press, 1955) 80- 81) Paul believed that all men as part of
    humanity actually participate in Adam's sin and all men as part  of
    humanity actually participate in Christ's goodness, thereby freeing
    them from the yoke of sin through  the gift of God's grace in Christ.
    Barclay sees Paul's tendency toward Universal Salvation here as a flaw. 
    He argues, that  man's connection with Adam is physical and involuntary
    and man's connection with  Christ is voluntary and can be accepted or
    rejected.  If Barclay's argument were true then the disobedience  of
    Adam would be more powerful than the obedience of Christ.  All
    humankind has no choice but to  participate in Adam's sin, therefore if
    good is truly more powerful than evil, the same number of  humanity,
    all, must participate in Christ.  There is no room for doubt in this
    passage;  The word "all" in  this passage is unmistakable.  There is
    also no room for free will in Paul's theology.  Without the gift of 
    divine Grace, an escape from sinfulness is impossible.  Free will
    implies that woman and men can save  themselves by their own freely
    chosen actions.  For Paul, it is only faith that saves. The message of 
    Romans 5 corresponds exactly with a similar passage in first
    Corinthians. For since death came through a  human being, the
    resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being.  "For as
    all die in Adam,  so all will be made alive in Christ" 1 Cor.
    15:21-22Again "all" is "all"  Even though Martin Luthur and  those who
    write in his tradition mistakenly substitutes "all who believe" for
    "all", making the gift of grace conditional upon acceptance,  I believe
     this is reading something into the passage that is not there.  Perhaps
     this is because Paul is not consistent on this point throughout Romans or
     throughout his letters.  In Romans 4:24b "It will be reckoned to us who
     believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead"  salvation is
     proclaimed for those who believe in God.  Romans is clearly not 
     consistent.  An analysis that is committed to the assumption of the 
    consistency of the book of Romans is  forced to make "all" mean something
    different than all. The other problem that
    Trinitarian Christians  must have with Paul's parallelism between Adam
    and Christ, is that as a representative man in who all of  humanity
    participate, Christ must be fully human and not divine.  Christ is
    essentially not different  than humankind, but the best example of
    perfected humanity. He is the first fruit of humanity to experience 
    the resurrection and the glory of God.  Others by adoption will be made
    brothers and sisters to Christ and  participate with him in his death
    and resurrection.  If Christ were divine, the notion of humankind 
    participating in Christ would be a different notion.  The parallelism
    between the one man Adam and the  one man Christ implies that they both
    are fully human.  I Cor 15:22 quoted above makes explicit "The 
    resurrection of the dead comes through a human being" what is implicit
    in Romans 5:18-21.  The  evidence for the separateness and
    subordination of Christ to God in Paul's letters is much stronger, than 
    the evidence for the equality of God and Christ.  Again, Paul is not
    consistent.  1 Cor 15:28("When all  things are subjected to him, then
    the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in 
    subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.") is strong
    evidence for the subordination of Christ to  God. Philippians
    2:6.6 "Who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality
    with God as  something to be exploited.") is the strongest statement
    for the Trinitarian formula.  These are but two  conflicting arguments
    for or against the Unitarian principle. 
    
    There is another major flaw in Paul's  parallelism between Adam and Christ.
    Paul ignored the partnership nature of Adam's trespass and  thereby
    displays his own gender bias.  Paul has already established in the letter
    to the Corinthians that he  uses the second version of the creation story
    which has God creating Eve from Adam's rib.  Perhaps this  is his rational
    for omitting Eve- that Eve as women participates in the community of faith
    through Adam.   To include Eve in the Parallelism would also require a
    woman Christ.  To exclude women  continues the  traditional Judaic custom
    of including women in God's Covenant only through there relatedness to
    their  husbands or fathers. 
    
    Another problem is the move from a culture that viewed human groups as
    collectives  to a culture that assumes individual responsibility.
    Modern women and men define themselves as  individuals and not as
    absolute participants in a collected whole.  Would we ever want to
    establish a child  as morally and ethically responsible for the
    trespasses of her mother or father or of someone else in the 
    community.  Collective participation is the  basis of Paul's theology
    of salvation.  All humanity participate  in Adam's sinful state and
    therefore all humanity must participate in Christ for salvation.  How
    do we  make meaningful these concepts given our modern ideas of
    individual responsibility?
    
     Jungian Psychology  may offer some assistance in struggling with our
     understanding good and evil from a modern perspective.   Adam can be
     identified as the archetypal man searching for wisdom and meaning on his
     own terms.   Christ is the archetypal model of perfected humanity. 
     Humanity does carry in its consciousness the  universal struggle between
     good and evil which the archetypal faith that good is indeed more
     powerful  than evil. 
    
    Thus far I have discuss verses 18, 19, and 21.  They identify the 
    parallelism between the one  man's disobedience and the one man's 
    obedience, leading to the contrast between sin and grace. Verse 20  plays
    a different role relating law and trespass, sin and grace.  The idea is
    that humankind could not know  of its sinful condition until there was
    law.  If humankind could not know of its sinful condition, then 
    humankind could not appreciate the grace of God in Christ Jesus.  Law
    needed to abound, so that sin  could increase, so that grace could
    abound even more.  Paul is very consistent in his treatment of Grace 
    and law.  Law is good and not bad, but law assigns men responsibility
    for their transgressions because  they now know that what they do is
    evil and still cannot help doing that which is evil.  
    
    In this passage,  Paul goes one step further in showing how law
    provides the awareness of human sinfulness and therefore  even more
    clearly reveals the goodness of God's gift of Grace.  This verse is
    clear
    
    Impact of Roman's 5:  18-21 
    
    The impact of Roman�s 5: 18-21 is crucial.  My biggest concerns with
    modern Christianity are it's  patriarchal nature and its exclusive
    nature.  The belief that Christianity is the only legitimate religion
    for  humankind, leads to a religious imperialism and to an ignorance of
    the value of other religions.  This  passage indicates that within
    Christianity itself, there are the seeds for cultural liberation.  If
    in fact,  Christ is the archetype of perfected humanity, then perhaps
    Christ is not revealed uniquely in one human  being representing a
    specific gender, culture, race, and condition.  If Adam and Eve are
    indeed metaphor  for the common condition of all humanity without God,
    then perhaps Christ is also a metaphor for the  condition of humanity
    in God.  The parallel allows for many interpretations some with greater
    appeal to the whole community of Christians than others.
    
    The point of the passage is  clear though.  God is the God of all woman
    and men.  God created all humanity for good and holy purpose
    
    PDF  May 93.

    What I have posted today is part of a paper I wrote in My 94.    It is
    a starting point.  It is based on NRSV.

 Patricia, thanks for entering that.  As a reminder, the guidelines of
 the conference call for a 100 line limit for replies.  Perhaps any
 future replies of a length greater than 100 lines could be broken up?




 Thanks

 Jim Co-Mod

      Hi,
    
        I haven't read much of this string (time restraints), but
        I'm just wondering...
    
        Has anyone tackled Romans 5:18
        Therefore, as through one man's offense [judgment] came to 
        all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's
        righteouss act [the free gift came] to all men, resulting in
        justification of life.
    
        This rendering is NKJV and the brackets were supplied by the
        version.
    
        Questions:
        Who are the ALL MEN that offense came to?  Who are the ALL MEN
        that the righteouss act is extended to?
    
        If the condemnation applies to all men, does it follow that the
        justification applies to the same?  Is it grammatically possible
        that the justification occurs to something less than the ALL MEN?
    
                                                     Tony

I decline to participate in this discussion as defined.  Attempting an
exegesis of three carefully chosen verses to prove anything, however well
done that stand-alone exegesis may be, is a pointless, meaningless excercise.
As I pointed out before, the immediately preceding verse, verse 17, clearly
and completely refutes the exegesis that you are attempting, Patricia.  Verse
18, which you are basing so much on, is not a stand-alone thought, it is a
continuation of verse 17, which reads:

    For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the
    one, much more **those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift
    of righteousness** will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

Note how the asterisk'ed section makes it abundantly clear that those saved
by the life of Jesus are THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE GIFT.  The word translated
"receive" here is a very active word, that does not at all convey the concept
of passive reception.  It means to take, to claim, to procure, to choose, to
select.  There is no hint of universality here, verse 17 makes very clear
that the life and Grace of Christ are for those who CHOOSE AND CLAIM it.

Verse 18 is a clear continuation of this thought, starting with "So then..."  
In the Greek, it doesn't begin with the simple word for "therefore," it
begins with a double word form of "therefore," which strenthens the sense of
causality and is used only a dozen times in the New Testament.  Given these
facts, to claim that verse 18's "all" must mean literally "all" is simply
nonsense.

What you are doing is the precise equivalent of taking a statement like "I
categorically deny that I beat my wife," extracting the last four words, and
claiming "See, you admit right here that you beat your wife - I have this
quote from you: 'I beat my wife.'  I want you to refute those four words,
without making any reference to the sentence they were spoken in."

If I were to put a name to this practice, I'd probably get this note hidden.

And this of course is apart from that fact that there are hundreds of other
verses in the New Testament that speak of judgement and selective salvation,
which you simply dismiss.

Give it up, Patricia.  Simply stick with saying you believe in universal
salvation, and that you don't accept the Bible's notion of judgement.  I can
accept that and have no need, nor basis, to argue with you about it.  But
don't try to claim that the Bible or Jesus support your notion of universal
salvation.  It simply can't be done, and it reflects poorly upon you when you
try.

Paul

    >It says, if death reigned through one, much more the abundance of grace
    >will reign in life through Jesus.
    
    Patricia,
    
    You left out the "those who RECEIVE" part of the verse that Paul was
    referring to. (John 1:12-13 "But as many as received Him, to them He gave
    the right to become chrildren of God, even to those who beleive in His
    name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
    the will of man, but of God.")
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing
    

    >I just don't buy the circular argument that in this passage all doesn't
    >mean all because in another passage somewhere in the Bible the theology
    >is different.  If you want to prove that there is no contradictions in

    There is NO contradiction.  It has repeatedly been stated that God has
    offered (or made available) His grace to ALL people.  It has also been
    repeatedly stated that the free gift of grace must be RECEIVED.  Not
    receiving is the same as rejection.  There is no circular or
    contradictory argument in this.  Ignoring the text that the verse is
    written in and the rest of the New Testament results in circular
    arguments.
    
    In Him,
    
    Bing
    
    

>    If you are making the claim, I am reading this out of contexts then
>    prove it.

I did.  You ignored it.  I pointed out how verse 17 very clearly uses a Greek
word which conveys an active taking or choosing.  Then without referencing
that at all, you take this verse:

  >For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the
  >one, much more **those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift
  >of righteousness** will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

And come up with this interpretation:

  >It says, if death reigned through one, much more the abundance of grace
  >will reign in life through Jesus.

Amazing! Remarkable!  I didn't realize your capacity to pick and choose
extended even to the ability to take a sentence, remove a ****CRUCIAL****
word right from the middle of it, and truly believe that the original
sentence meant the same as your version with the word removed.

I have respected you, though I disagreed with you, Patricia.  But I must say
that I am shocked and speechless.  It's truly pointless for me to continue
this discussion.

>If Adams sin brings death to every one of us and Jesus
>    brings life to only some of us, then clearly Adams sin would be more
>    powerful than Jesus' redemptive acts.  

As an aside, this isn't at all true either.  The fact that Jesus' redemption
is offered as a choice does not reflect in the slightest upon its power.

I will bow out now.  When we can't even agree to leave all the words in a
sentence we're trying to understand the meaning of, whatever tiny basis we
might have had for discussion is gone.

Paul

 To quote a note I saw in another conference...


"you are in a maze of twisty little passages"...




Jim

>When we can't even agree to leave all the words in a
>sentence we're trying to understand the meaning of, whatever tiny basis we
>might have had for discussion is gone.

 I'd highly recommend picking up a Strong's Concordance and a good
 Bible dictionary (Vining's for example) available at any Christian
 bookstore..



Jim

Thank you, Patricia.  Certainly I'll provide the information I have.  I'm
nothing like a greek scholar either, but I do have some resources by which to
get at the real meanings of words.

Verse 17, in Greek, reads like this,  (condensed slightly, I'm only willing
to type in so much):

       Greek
   Transliteration	Translation

	gar		for
	ei		if, whether
	heis		one
	paraptoma	1)fall beside or near
			2)a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness
	thanatos	1)separation of body and soul by which life on
			  earth is ended, with the implied idea of future
			  misery in hell.
			2)the misery of the soul arising from sin
			3)the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell
	basileuo	1)to be king, to reign
			2)to exercise the highest influence, to control
			[This verb is in the aorist tense, which indicates 
			that it is without reference to past, present or 
			future, and is in the active voice, as in "the boy 
			hit the ball"]
	dia		by, through
	heis		one
	polus		many, much, large
	mallon		more, to a greater degree
	lambano		to take up, lay hold of, to make one's own, to claim,
			to procure for one's self, to associate with one's
			self, to seize, to not let go, to catch (used of
			hunters, fishermen, etc), to circumvent by fraud, 
			to catch at, reach after, strive to obtain, to take a
			thing due, to collect, to admit, to receive what is
			offered, to not refuse or reject, to receive a 
			person-give him access to one's self, to choose, to
			select, to prove, to experience, to receive what is
			given, to gain, get, obtain.

			(Quite the versatile word, no?)

			[Verb is in present tense, active voice]

	perisseia	abundance, superabundantly
	charis		grace, that which affords joy, pleasure, delight,
			good will, lovingkindness, favor.  A gift of grace,
			a thanks, recompense, or reward.
	kai		and
	dorea		gift
	dikaiosune	condition acceptable to God; integrity, virtue
	basileuo	1)to be king, to reign
			2)to exercise the highest influence, to control
			[This verb is in the future tense, active voice]
	en		in
	zoe		life, fullness of life
	dia		through, by
	heis		one
	Iesous		Jesus
	Christos	Christ.

Note that other Greek words that could have been used for "accept" or
"receive" (searching the lexicon for these two words in the definitions) are:

	choreo		To make room, to leave space
	anadechomai	To receive hospitably
	analambano	To take up to carry
	analepsis	To take up
	apodechomai	to accept from, receive
	apolambano	To receive what is due or promised
	aspazomai	To receive joyfully, welcome
	dechomai	To grant access, to not refuse, to embrace
	diadechomai	To receive through another anything bequeathed
	eisdechomai	To receive kindly, to treat with favor
	ekdechomai	To receive, accept, to look for, await
	eklegomai	To pick out of many, to choose or select
	endechetai	To receive, admit, approve, allow
	enotizomai	To receive into the ear, to listen
	epidechomai	To admit, to not reject
	kleronomeo	To receive by right of inheritance, to inherit
	xenodocheo	To receive and entertain hospitably
	oninemi		To receive help or joy
	paradechomai	To accept, receive, acknowledge as one's own
	paralambano	To take, to join to one's self
	prosdechomai	To receive to one's self
	proslambano	To take in kindly
	hupodechomai	To receive as a guest
	hupolambano	To welcome, to take up in order to raise

The word chosen here by Paul very clearly implies an active participation on
the part of the chooser.  He had plenty of other words to choose from that
just meant "receive".

Next reply will do a similar dissection for verse 18.

Paul

       Greek
   Transliteration	Translation

	ara		Therefore, so then, wherefore
	oun		Then, therefore, accordingly.  (see note below)
	hos		as, like
	dia		through, by
	paraptoma	1)fall beside or near
			2)a lapse or deviation from truth and uprightness
	heis		one
	eis		into, to
	pas		each, every, all
	anthropos	human being
	eis		into, to
	katakrima	damnatory sentence, condemnation
	kai		and, also, even
	houto		in this manner
	dia		through, by
	dikaioma	right, ordained by law, an ordinance
	heis		one
	eis		into, to
	pas		each, every, all
	anthropos	human being
	eis		into, to
	dikaiosis	declare free from guilt
	zoe		life, fullness of life


The word "ara,' meaning therefore, is never used alone.  The word "oun,"
meaning therefore, is used about 500 times, but the combination of the two is
only used 11 times, and only by Paul.  Without exception, every time Paul
uses these two words in conjuction like this, it is to make a concluding
statement which reiterates and wraps up a thought he has expounded upon.  The
other instances are:

	Rom 7:3, 7:25, 8:12, 9:16, 9:18, 14:12, 14:19
	Gal 6:10, Eph 2:19, 1 Thess 5:6, 2 Thess 2:15

So Paul is very clearly here intending verse 5:18 to be a continuation of the
thought expressed in the previous verses.

Paul

Patricia, 
  I echo Jim's recommendation.  If you plan on becoming a theologian, 
Strong's Exhuastive Concordance will be an invaluable resource for
getting at the Greek and Hebrew meanings of the words of Scripture.
You don't have to learn Greek (though at seminary you probably will)
to use ths concordance.  It is an english-alphabetized tome of the
words in Bible with the scripture reference next to it (so if you see
the word "love" you'll know whether its brotherly love, sexual love, 
or divine love).
  Some Bibles come with Strong's numbering system next to words in 
the text and a reference inthe back of the Bible.  The Hebrew-Greek Key
Study Bible, Spiro Zodhaites, commentator (yes, he's greek and a 
well-respected theologian) is one such Bible.  (Yes, I have several
versions.)
  I have seen so many people get twisted on "plain english" of the Bible
because of King James' connotation of a word in 1611 was changed over the
years to another connotation, or because an english word could not 
adequately portray the whole concept intended by a word.
  By the way, I don't think Strong's Concordance has *any* bias or filter.
It is a dictionary; a reference book only.  It only tells you what the
English text was translated *from* and what the origianl word *means*,
so you can parse things out for yourself without "filters."
  My recommendation for Zodhaites may not carry as much weight; he's
well-respected by conservative theologians (I'd warrant).
  
>    Our filters, and all of us do have filters are power.

What kind of power, I wonder?  

In my view, filters are hinderances, like holes so only dimes can get
through when sifting coins; a lot of money can be missed, but my what
a handsome collection of neatly packaged dimes one can get!  I think
filters rob us of the full context, the full intent, the full blessing.

What kind of power do you think filters provide?

Mark

    NRSV  Romans 5:17
    
    If because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through
    that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of
    grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life
    through the one man, Jesus Christ.
    
    
    Any problem with this translation?

> It would be helpful if based on your word study you wrote verse 17 as you
> believe it should be translated.  

I don't know Greek, so I can't really hope to translate the verse more
effectively than scholars have.  I'd be interested in how the Amplified Bible
translates it.  Does anyone have a copy handy?  My only real point in doing
the word study on verse 17 is to show that the word chosen by Paul in this
sentence, which is translated by scholars as "receive" is a word which very
much connotates an active catching, seizing, procuring on the part of the one
who receives, and that Paul had plenty of other words to choose from that
carry connotations of a more passive acceptance, a joyful welcoming,
accepting as an inheritance, etc.

> I have to get myself a tool that will help me with the translation.

If you have a PC, Logos Bible software is excellent, that's what I used to do
this word study, and it only took a few minutes.  It would have taken less on
the PC itself because I could have cut-and-pasted the information instead of
having to retype it.  Logos allows you do do things quickly that you simply
can't do with just a concordance, like find all the definitions that include
the words "receive" or "accept", or find the verses that have both the words
"ara" and "oun".

Paul

That translation (NRSV) is fine.

But as Mark mentioned, to get the full understanding of a verse often
requires digging into the original Greek words.  When translating, scholars
constantly have to balance trying to convey all the meaning of the original
with producing a readable translation.  So when the Greeks had 20 words that
carry a connotation of "receive," the translators can't always bring out the
nuances of each word, and have to settle for "receive."  The Amplified Bible
is one which consciously gives up readability to try to get as many of the
nuances as possible.

An example that is worth noting is the Greek word that is generally
translated as "believe," for example in John 3:16 "Whoever believes in Him
will inherit eternal life."  The word is "pisteuo", and carries a connotation
of "to adhere to, trust, rely on," which is much more active and involved
than our modern-day understanding of the word "believe," which is much more a
sense of "to intellectually assent to truth."

In fact, "pisteuo" is the noun form of the word "pistis," which is the word
used in the New Testament for "Faith."

I stumbled over this verse for years, because I listened only to the English
words.  I couldn't understand why God would do anything in particular for us
based simply on our intellectual assent to Christ.  When I understood that
the original language meant adherence to Christ, trust in Christ, and
reliance on Christ, then it made perfect sense.

Paul

    .46
    
    I am a bit disappointed with your statement regarding the concordance. 
    If your instructor doesn't recommend it as the best then you will
    SEARCH for one.  It sounds like you may just be reject Strong's because
    the fundamentalists are saying its a good tool.  I hope and pray that
    we haven't just presupposed our position and now are looking to prove
    it versus an honest search for the truth.
    
    Nancy

    .52
    
    Then imho you are not truly looking at all sides of the coin, just one,
    your own preconceived ideas.  I understand this.  I struggle much with
    it myself, not wanting to become tainted..but it is also that "fear" of
    becoming tainted that you have spoken about.
    
    I'd have thought that a Strong's concordance would not be threatening
    to you and that you would hold it as an opportunity to truly reprove
    your theology. 
    
    I certainly have a tremendous amount of growing to do in this regard
    as well.
    
    Nancy

 Strong's Concordance has been in existance much longer than liberal
 "Christian theology"



 Jim

    >One of the frustrating things I find with a community like this, is
    >that it is intentionally a community with people with similiar filters,
    
    I guess in comes down to, "what is your purpose for participating in
    this conference".  Is it to gain more knowledge or to debate issues.  
    Personally the reason I participate in this conference is to be
    encouraged in my walk with the Lord.  The bible says that we are to build
    each other up, to encourage each other, to keep each other from falling
    away from the Lord, to support each other as we pursue righteousness,
    faith, love and peace.  I don't come to debate whether God is who He
    says He is, or to get involved in "foolish and ignorant speculation,
    knowing that they produce quarrels" (2 Tim 2:23).  I don't even come to
    convince others to receive Christ in their life (I certainly rejoice
    when that happens, however) as I don't think this is the best medium in
    which to allow others to see Christ's love in action.  If believing
    God's word is inerrant and that God is never going to speak to me
    contrary to His Word is a filter -- than that is my filter.  But, I acquired
    that filter as a result of the evidence and God prooving Himself in my life,
    not as a result of a personal preference or bias.  Many times my
    personal bias is contrary to God's Word.  At those times I need to
    remember, that as a Christian, I have died to my old life and that I am
    a new creature in Christ.  If I have died and my life is hidden with
    Christ, I need to be willing to give up my old preferences and
    prejudices and be conformed through the renewing of my mind.
    
    Filter, as Mark defined it, is any personal preference that would 
    interfere with the study of God's word.  So if my personal preference
    is to work 80 hours a week, then when I study God's word I try to find
    ways for the bible to justify working 80 hours a week, rather than
    seeking to hear from God whether my attitude towards work is in line
    with His desire for me.  It goes back to the Psalms where David says,
    "search me O God and know my heart, try me and know my anxious
    thoughts".  Proverbs talks a lot about how mankind's ways are not God's
    ways.  The only way to know God's ways is by listening to Him.  I can
    hear my Father's voice in other ways than through reading the bible,
    but God is never going to contradict His word when He speaks to me in
    those other ways.
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing 
    
    

    
    Actually I prefer the NASB as it's the closest word for word translation
    in English.  My church uses NIV.  I also like to read in The Living 
    Bible by Tyndale when I'm just not getting a passage.  My pocket N.T. 
    is NRSV.  I have some word study tools in KJV.  I even have the N.T. 
    in a 4 translation parallel that includes the amplified version.  I 
    also have the message that is a not very precise modern translation, 
    but I appreciate how it phrases somethings.  So yep...I guess that 
    makes me one of those narrow and closed conservative types.
    
    I don't have a Strong's but have browsed at it in the bookstore.  I 
    don't think it gives a "conservative" analysis.  I think it just shows 
    the original Hebrew or Greek words alongside of the KJV text and then 
    provides the meanings of those words in the context of the culture at 
    the time it was written.  The definitions of the words are separate,
    so the book doesn't draw conclusions to passages.  It's simply a tool 
    to help you the reader dig deeper into God's word.  I think that any 
    theologian regardless of their bent would be hard-pressed to not 
    recommend Strong's as an excellent tool.  But if anyone can find one, 
    I'm sure it would be you Patricia. ;^)
    
    Jill

    It comes back to what I wrote in 657.27 Patricia.
    
    Do you believe that all those who call themselves
    Christian are Christian?  And do you believe that all Christian's are
    controlled by a given source?
    
    Nancy

    I had forgotten which note we were discussing this in.  It seems that
    we are a little off topic.  But as you asked several questions, I'll
    take a crack at answering them.
    
    >"Any preconceived idea that keeps us from discerning the truth
    >about God"
    >   If there is any possibility that your notion about innerancey is
    >    incomplete, misunderstood, or in any way leads to wrong conclusions,
    
    Innerancy isn't a preconceived idea.  As I stated, its a conclusion I
    reached as a result of study and God prooving Himself and His word to
    be true in my life.  
    The other side of the coin is --If there is no foundation upon which to
    build my faith, how do I discern whether the voice I'm hearing is from
    God, myself, or Satan (who disguises Himself as an angel of light and who 
    is the great deceiver)? 
    
    >1.  What is your responsibility when some one murders those who work in
    >    abortion clinics based on "Christian" doctrine.
    
    I'd say my responsibility is to do the same thing as all the Christian
    leaders I know of have been doing.  To state that murder is wrong.  By
    taking justice into their own hands in murdering abortionists, those
    people have lowered themselves to the very level of the people they're
    trying to protect society from.  There are always going to be mentally
    unstable people who claim that God told them to do something.  Now a
    question, if these people are claiming that God told them to do
    something (as in murder) that is contrary to what God's Word says  -
    Then who's voice were they hearing?  Satan wants to take partial truths
    and make people believe that it is the total truth.
    
        
    >    2.  What is your responsibility when someone holds up a sign saying 
    >    "God hates  xxx"
     
    It depends what the sign says that God hates.  If it says God hates
    sin, then I would agree with it (although I would rather stress how
    much God loves each of us).  If it says God hates the sinner, than I
    would argue with that person as strongly as anyone.
       
    >    3.  What is your responsibility to make sure that someone does not
    >    interpret God's punishment of his whoring bride Israel as an
    >    excuse to beat his wife on the assumptions that as God is to Man, 
    >    Man is to women?
    
    I never heard of this happening.  If someone I knew was beating his
    wife, saying that God told him to -- that person would obviously need
    counseling.  Again, I would ask, "who was telling the man to beat his
    wife?", this run in direct contradiction to God's word.  I would try to
    help ensure that the wife get out of a distructive situation, until
    such a time as the man could demonstrate a changed behavior, which
    lined up with scripture.  I would try to get the man involved in a
    church which taught the man what his role should be from a Christian
    perspective.  Again, the bible tells men to love their wife as Chris
    loved the church.  I never heard Christ refer to His bride in the
    manner you've referred to.
    
    
    Ultimately, each person is responsible for their OWN response to God,
    not someone else's.  And I can't change another person into what I
    think they ought to be.  If they have received Christ into their life,
    then they are a child of God who has their own personal relationship
    with Christ.  We can, however, encourage each other to abide in Christ and 
    help each other to rightly divide the truth.
    
    
    Love in Him,
    
    Bing
    
    
    

>If it says God hates the sinner, than I would argue with that person as
>strongly as anyone.

I can give you the phone number of Ben Phelps, the son of the minister whose
family goes around the country holding up those signs at funerals, at the
St. Patrick's Day parade in Boston, etc.

I tried to argue with him one night on the phone; I tried to convince him to
take a different approach.  I wasn't very successful.  Maybe you will be.

/john

    re .61
    
    John,
    
    Good point.  After a personal confrontation, many people will not be
    swayed.  At that point I would have to express my opinion to others
    that this man was NOT being led by the God whom I call Father and who
    inspired the writing of His Word- the Bible.
    
    In Him,
    
    Bing

	Just a moment, folks.  Read Psalm 5:5 and tell me what it means to
you.  This does *not* mean that I endorse every antic ever thought up and
done by Ben Phelps and crew.  What I'm saying is that a message can be
accurate, true, and even necessary, regardless of whether anyone wants to
hear it or not.  I have also cited some very biblical precedents, which no
one has yet deigned to address.  Comments, anyone?  (John?)

 Is it the mission of the Christian Church to stand in front of various
 places speaking of God's hatred (which those of the world do not understand)
 or to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Phelps, et al do little, if
 anything to see that people's hearts are changed.



Jim

      re: .60
    
      Hi Paul,
    
        I have a hard time with your personal perspective of what your
        'filter' is.  You stated that your personal filter is the inerrant
        word of God.
    
        Patricia defined filter as anything that prevents us from knowing
        the truth.  I think she could be referring to any personality 
        traits we have come to have for any reason.  For example, a person
        may grow up an orthodox Jew.  All things being the same, it might
        be more difficult for such a person to 'see' that Christ is the
        Messiah.  This is because this person has a certain filter.  A
        Jehovah's Witness might have a filter as well; finding it harder
        to see that Christ is God (given that all his life he was told 
        otherwise and was given much scripture in 'support').
    
        I think it is far better for all of us to kneel before our Lord
        and to confess our filters.  To ask God to somehow get another
        nuggest of light to make its way through our filters and into our
        hearts.  Denial of the existence of filters can only suppres the
        work of God trying to get His pure water (His word) THROUGH it!!!
    
        Patricia owned up to the fact that she has filters.  This is a
        very fundamental and important realization.  In terms of this one
        thing, i.e. the personal admission that we have filters, I for one
        decide to link up with Patricia and be part of her 'we.'  So when
        _you_ speak of 'we', just know that in what I consider to be a very
        important aspect, I am not a part of your 'we', but rather hers.
    
        This is really important!  How's the Lord gonna reach Laodicaea
        when she already thinks she's rich!!!  A denial of our own filters
        is suicide for Laodicaea.  She's got to know that she's got them!!
    
                                                       Tony
                                                                        

	But you have not addressed the Psalm 5:5 passage, nor the biblical
precedents.  You are also judging their (Ben Phelps and company) motives
from afar.  Why do they do what they do?  Is it from (possibly misguided)
compassion, or is it just mean-spiritedness?  You'd have to find out from
them, wouldn't you?  Also, how do you know whether their tactics are ever
effective or not?  And, is this the most important criterion?  I'm willing
to guess that sometimes (often?) their words and actions may do more harm
than good.  But it is only a guess.

Psalms 5:5  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all 
workers of iniquity. 


I understand what the passage is saying and I don't doubt it.  My concern
is the testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ tha is given by those like Phelps,
et al.  They may indeed frighten folks away from an an abortion, but will
that fright point them to Christ?




Jim

> Somehow
>    I sense that most of the effort is not in taking serious this chapter
>    but in what is Patricia trying to do with and how is she trying to
>    trick us with it.

I take this chapter incredibly seriously, I take each verse incredibly
seriously.  I don't think you're trying to trick anyone.  What I do think you
are doing is ripping a single sentence completely out of its context, which
is the only way you can make it seem to say what you want it to say.  All I
have intended to do is make that clear.

> Consistent or not consistent this chapter merits attention.  

So too do the rest of Romans and the rest of the New Testament and the rest
of the Bible, of which this chapter is only a part, merit attention.

> What does it say and how does it fit in with the rest of Romans.  

Where we differ is that I believe it is completely impossible to remove this
verse from the rest of Romans and the rest of the Bible, come to some
understanding of "what it says" totally removed from its context, and then
try to "fit in" this out-of-context concept with the rest of the Romans or
the rest of the Bible.

This is one way that "contradictions" arise.  When verse 18 is read WITHIN
ITS CONTEXT, it is abundantly clear that Paul could not possibly have been
speaking of universal salvation when he chose the word "all."  Paul
repeatedly and consistently speaks of God's Judgement as well as God's Grace.
As Mark mentioned, it's like saying "We eat here all the time." - the word
"all" is used, but it does not actually mean "all."

I reject the "truth" that you find by evaluating Romans 5:18 standing all by
its lonesome because I reject your scholastic method.

Paul

Hi Tony.

No, I don't believe that God's Word is a 'filter' that keeps us from seeing
the truth.  But Patricia does.  I was just speaking her language for a moment.

I'm in complete agreement with you.  Our filters must be shredded by God's
Word, to allow His Truth to fill us unfiltered.

Paul

      Hi Paul,
    
        oooops...nervermind!!
    
                                        Tony

    Patricia,
    
    Your declaration that God doesn't hate anything after having read the
    Psalms verse is evidence of an inability to dialogue with you.  We will
    only end up in debate.
    
    Now you had me post the note regarding these two styles of
    communication, so therefore, I believe you understand what I mean.
    
    Inerrantist:  God hates sin [workers of iniquity]
    
    	Why do you believe this?  
    
    Because its in the Bible.  But God
    doesn't stop there, God also loves all sinners.  Thus a paradox only
    the Divine can equitably employ.  Hating the sin, loving the sinner. 
    As a matter of fact loving the sinner so much that He sent Christ.
    
    Errantist:  God doesn't hate sin.
    
    	Why do you believe this?
    
    It is heresy.  God does not hate anybody. (well maybe Eseu)
    
    It is taking the name of the Lord in Vain.  If God does not hate a
    group of people and someone carries a sign saying that God hates a
    group of people it is breaking that important commandment.
    
    It turns people off to God.
    
    It is sinful, wrong, hateful behavoir.
    
    *****
    	How do you know this is sinful behavior?
   						***** 
    

    .77
    
    Actually love and hate are not mutually exclusive they are dependent
    upon on another.
    
    

Way too far behind on this to comment so I'll bow in at another time if
so inclined but out on this one.

As for Strong's, Patricia, take a look at it.  There is NO commentary in
it to be biased.  And it contains both the Greek AND the Hebrew, so it
will be perfect for your Old Testament courses.

There is NO WAY it can provide you with a persuasion - any more than 
the dictionary, by means of rendering certain words, persuade one to 
become a libertarian, for example.

Mark

	This isn't a mere quibble for me.  It looks to me as though
Scripture is repeatedly teaching and illustrating another paradox.

	All have sinned.  God hates the workers of iniquity.  God will
eventually visit His wrath on anyone and everyone who refuses repentance
and regeneration.

	Yet, God so loved the world [cosmos, that's everyone, I believe]
that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [very inclusive]
believeth in Him [rather exclusive] should not perish, but have everlasting
life.

	That's the bad news, and the good news, for everyone.  The good
news is irrelevant and nonsensical, unless and until a foundation of
understanding is formed within an individual, regarding the bad news.

I suppose that it could be worthwhile to come to an understanding of what
Paul's theology around salvation was, and as such to limit an exegesis to the
letters you believe are written by Paul.  Just so long as we understand
before we begin that any conclusion we reach is subject to correction by the
rest of the Bible.  Attributing some particular additional meaning to Paul's
authorship beyond a work being included in the Bible is YOUR filter, not that
of anyone else here.

As an aside, Patricia, I find it fascinting and indicative that you have
carefully researched, internalized, and remembered literary critisism of the
New Testament, down to which chapters or portions of chapters of Romans are
under possible authorship dispute.  Yet in reply .40 to this note, you say: 

   "I don't understand Greek and I don't have the resource to
    interpret the sentence.  I also must admit I don't know how to use
    those resources.  I have always thought word studies boring and
    pointless."

You devote great energy and interest to studies by which you can discredit
the Bible, yet find "boring and pointless" a study of what the Bible is
actually saying.  This says an awful lot about the extent to which you are
'filtering' what the Bible has to say.

The fact that you were uninterested in the actual meanings of the words makes
your 'exegesis' of Romans 5:18-21 in fact a classic example of "eisegesis" (I
think that is the correct word), which rather than "drawing out" the meaning
of a passage (ex=out of, as in extract), is "reading in" (eis=in) a meaning
to the passage based on what you want it to say.

Paul

I hear and understand, Patricia, that you are now coming to an understanding
that word studies can be useful, and are modifying your previous opinion. 
But it was your previous opinion, and the inferences that can be drawn from
it, that I was commenting on.

My commment was based on the fact that, prior to this discussion, you found
it interesting enough to pursue literary critisism, but did not find it
interesting to pursue an investigation of the original meanings of words.  I
believe that my inference - that it was thus more interesting to you to find
ways to discredit the Bible than it was interesting to you to find out what
the Bible actually says - holds.

That this discussion is opening your eyes to the value of word study makes me
glad.

Paul

| <<< Note 656.53 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Then imho you are not truly looking at all sides of the coin, just one,
| your own preconceived ideas.  

	Nancy, would you feel the same way about a concordance that a group I 
belonged to might recommend?


Glen

| <<< Note 656.55 by ODIXIE::HUNT "Remember your chains are gone" >>>

| >One of the frustrating things I find with a community like this, is
| >that it is intentionally a community with people with similiar filters,

| I guess in comes down to, "what is your purpose for participating in
| this conference".  Is it to gain more knowledge or to debate issues.  

	Bing, does it really matter why anyone would want to participate in
here? 

| I don't come to debate whether God is who He says He is, or to get involved in
| "foolish and ignorant speculation, knowing that they produce quarrels" (2 Tim 
| 2:23).  

	Maybe that is something that is wrong. Everyone is so afraid of
upsetting anyone else, that nothing with full substance ever gets said. I
commend Patricia for sharing her views in this file. She has opened herself up
to everyone in here and has gotten a barage of notes questioning her beliefs.
If anyone has noticed, she has remained consistant in her answers throughout.
Quarrels could actually get to the root of a problem.

| If believing God's word is inerrant and that God is never going to speak to me
| contrary to His Word is a filter -- than that is my filter.  But, I acquired
| that filter as a result of the evidence and God prooving Himself in my life,
| not as a result of a personal preference or bias.  

	From reading Patricia's notes, I for one knows she does not fit this
catagory (and I wasn't sure you were trying to put her into it). But what I do
find funny is someone can say they have come to the conclusions that they have
based on the things God has shown them, while someone with a more fundamentalist
background will say it's their own bias/preference. Uh huh... 

Glen

| <<< Note 656.58 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Do you believe that all those who call themselves Christian are Christian?  

	Nancy, YOU ARE CORRECT! Of course they aren't. :-)  But I think
Patricia was asking how those who perceive themselves to be Christians react to
the people she described.

| And do you believe that all Christian's are controlled by a given source?

	I do.... God....

| <<< Note 656.59 by PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>


| With fair frequency, someone enters this file with the intent of helping us
| poor ignorant Bible-believing Christians see the error of our ways.

	Someone has to do it Paul! :-)

| Generally clothed in loving tolerance, the people who come in to do this try
| to "prod" us, and "call us to responsibility," though they are nearly always
| immune to any sort of return "prodding" or "calls to responsibility."  

	Well, it's hard to prod back in return when the file makes it
impossible to answer the questions asked without going against the conference
policies.....

| It's hard to say whether anything useful ever comes of this.  It's possible
| that some of my interactions here may have had some effect on the change that
| has been wrought in me, though I don't think there was much effect.  

	Then here is the key Paul. Don't think about JUST what you will or will
not get from anything that happens. Think of those who may actually see
something from the many exchanges that go on in here. These people may not talk
out, as they may be RO's, but what could happen is God using this forum as His
tool to get a message out to many, or even just a certain person. He is amazing
ya know.... :-)

| The major effect is to derail every single discussion in this file into
| protracted, circular wrangling over Biblical inerrancy, interpretation,
| "filters" etc.

	Uuuuhhhh.... Paul, is it possible that what you wrote above is wrong,
and that people are talking about THEIR beliefs?

| We've seen the "truth" you have to offer, Patricia, and the fact of the
| matter is: we just don't want it.  It's not that you haven't made it
| convincing enough, it's not that if you portray the truth you see from one
| more angle then we'll finally see it and embrace it with you.  We see it
| perfectly well, and we completely reject it.  

	I do NOT reject what Patricia says. And you know Paul, it doesn't
really matter if you, or anyone else accepts/rejects what she says. It is
really only a matter between her beliefs and Him. But it's nice to know that
you can speak for everyone in here Paul..... 

| Just as you completely reject as "utterly evil" much of the truth that we see.

	Do you really believe she rejects 100% of ALL your beliefs? I guess
we'll have to let her answer that, but my guess would be you are wrong on this
Paul.

| Can we agree to disagree, Patricia?  I don't need to keep trying to convince
| you that you're wrong, that the feminism that you have become entangled in is
| a satanic deception, that the "wisdom" of feminism, which is based on bitter
| envy and self-seeking, is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil, and where it is
| found there is confusion and disorder and every evil thing (James 3:14-16). 

	Paul, you simply amaze me. I guess if you took the time to find out
what feminism really is, you'd see how wrong you are....again.

| I can just accept that you beleive what you believe, and that for the moment 
| at least, no amount of discussion or proof is going to change your mind.  That
| your 'filter' simply will not allow in anything that might shake it.

	Could it possibly be that Patricia is speaking of her beliefs without
ever thinking of changing anyone's mind, without ever thinking her mind will or
will not be changed? That she is speaking about her beliefs to share them with
you? Why is it that it's always a, "you're trying to convince/convert out way
of thinking" when it's just, "sharing beliefs" PERIOD?


Glen

In re-reading my note .81, I agree that it can be, and most likely would be,
interpreted as referring to the present tense.  I apologize, that was not my
intention.  I had no desire or intent to distort what you said.  As indicated
in reply .83, I was referring to your prior level of interest.

That said, it seems that your focus on the tense is a bit of a smoke-screen. 
You are making an issue out of how I have distorted your view, focusing on
how I indicate present tense rather than past tense when referring to the
specific issue of your interest in word-study.  But you have taken no issue
with what I actually said, that your interests [have] indicated more of a
desire to discredit the Bible than to understand it.

And I don't really see any indication in any of your notes that that 
attitude - which you have not challenged as a distortion - has changed at
all.  I see that you have become aware that you'll have to take word study
into account as you try to make the Bible say what you want it to say.  But
that is not at all the same as a change of heart to now desire to let the
Bible say what the Bible says.

Do you now desire, based on your understanding of the value of word-study, to
let the Bible speak for itself?  To let the Bible FULLY speak for itself?  If
so, I will be delighted to apologize profusely.  If not, I don't really think
I've distorted anything.

Paul

    Notes 656.90 and 656.92 have been deleted from this conference.  I am
    requesting that the authors take their discussion offline.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

    I must comment on the nature of the discussion between Paul and
    Patricia.  I am very encourage and pleased to see misunderstandings and
    communications being handled in this manner.  Conflicts WILL happen,
    but how we handle them says much more, imo.
    
    Nancy
    

    Hi all,
    
    I haven't read through this string, so I don't know if this view has
    been presented yet or not. 
    
    Romans 5 starts off by presenting the fruits of Justification. Peace
    with God, Standing in Grace, and God's love poured into our hearts.
    Just to name a few. [Rom 5:1-5]
    
    A brief decription of God's love is given in verses 6-8. "While we were
    still sinners Christ died for us" God's love is unconditional.
    
    Verses 9-11 shows the assurance we have in Jesus. There should be no 
    doubts. "...when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
    death of His Son...." Now we are Family.
    
    verses 12-19, I believe verse 18 says it best "Therefore, as through
    one man's offense judgment came to ALL men, resulting in condemnation,
    even so through one Man's righteous act the FREE GIFT came to ALL men,
    resulting in justification of life." This text and others in this
    passage speak of an accomplished, certain-to-be-realized salvation and 
    THEY DO SO IN RELATIONSHIP TO ALL PERSONS. 
    
    Christ as "The Last Adam" has reversed all the evil that the first Adam
    did. As surely as "ALL MEN" were condemned by Adam's sin so surely 
    "ALL MEN" have been legally justified by Christ's sacrifice. He has
    ALREADY tasted death for "every man." He is the propitition for the
    sins "of the whole world".  [HEBREWS 2:9; 1JOHN 2:1-3]
    
    BUT, and this is a big BUT, what Adam did is ours by natural birth. We
    are born sinners. What Christ did is a GIFT. In other words Chirst
    gives all men Justification as a gift. "...the free gift came to all
    men." But man can either recieve or reject it. To recieve this most
    wonderful gift is to rejoice IN CHRIST and allow the warmth of His love
    to change our vile hearts into loving hearts. To reject it is to throw
    this wonderful gift away. WHY, WHY, WHY?
    
    "THIS IS THE CONDEMNATION, THAT THE LIGHT HAS COME INTO THE WORLD, AND
    MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL."
    JOHN 3:19
    
    I have more to say on Rom 12-18 in the next reply.
    
    Clay
    

    
    
    Some, maybe most, will scoff at the thought that "THE FREE GIFT CAME TO
    ALL MEN." They point to verse 19 which says
    "For as by one man's disobedience MANY were made sinners, so also by
    one Man's obedience MANY will be made righteous."
    
    How many is MANY? Haven't we all been made sinners? Or are there some
    who don't need a saviour? The same MANY who was made sinners are the
    same many who is made righteous by the obedience of JESUS. ALL. And its
    a gift GIVEN to all men.
    
     
    Notice how other texts bear this out.
    
    "That was the true Light which gives light to EVERY MAN who comes into
    the world" John 1:9 Light given to everyone, but some reject the light
    and walk in darkness. But it was given and that the point.
    
    "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but
    that THE WORLD through HIM might be saved." John 3:17
    
    "For the love of Christ constrains us, because we judge thus; that if
    One died for ALL, then ALL died;" 2 Cor 5:14
    
    "That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not
    imputing their trepasses to them, and has committed to us the word of
    reconciliation." 2 Cor 5:19  Not imputing who's trepasses? THE WORLDS.
    
    
    "Who gave Himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time." 1
    Tim2:6
    
    "...because we trust in the living god, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN,
    especially of those who believe." 1 Tim4:10
    
    "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared tp ALL men."
    Titus 2:11
    
    "...That He, by the grace of God, might taste death for EVERYONE." Heb
    2:9
    
    " And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
    only but also for the WHOLE WORLD." 1John 2:2
    
    God Bless
    
    Clay
    

    A FREE GIFT... SNARF

    Re: Note 656.100 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>   A FREE GIFT... SNARF
    
    /me chuckles

Replies discussing feminism have been moved to note 662.  662.1 and 662.2 
are intended as an introduction to the subject, but tend to be somewhat 
swamped by the 44 replies which follow.

This note should be able to continue with the discussion of whether Romans 5 
indicates universal salvation.  I believe that is the essence of its 
burden...

							   Andrew
							co-moderator

.24 provides some alternatives for understanding salvation:
    
>    1.  God chooses some for Salvation.  To them is given the free Gift of
>    salvation.  There is no human freedom.  To some is offered.  Those
>    offered accept.
>    
>    2.  God chooses all to offer salvation.  Some accept.  Some refuse to
>    accept.  
>    
>    3.  God Chooses all to offer salvation.  Some accept immediately.  Some
>    take much longer to accept.  All ultimately accept the free gift.
>    
>    
>    Are there other alternatives?
    
I just came across this string, and scanned most of it and was rather
surprised to find missing a discussion of a historically significant
explanation of the Doctrine of Salvation supported by the writings of
St. Augustine (5th century), John Calvin (16th century), and
Massachusetts' very own Jonathan Edwards (18th century).  While this
view has been discarded by the majority of Christendom today, it needs
to be stated, since I believe it is the view best supported by the
Word of God.  I summarize it below in my own words:

	Man (after the fall) is totally depraved and unable to turn to God.

	God elected some to salvation unconditionally.

	Christ died on the cross for the redemption of the elect.

	The Holy Spirit irresistibly draws the elect to salvation
	(regeneration).

	A regenerated individual is kept by the grace of God from
	falling away.
    
The key difference with the prevailing views in the earlier replies is
that God elects and does not make an offer of salvation to be accepted
or rejected, since in his totally depraved state, there is no question
what fallen man would do (reject).  All having sinned and fallen short
of the glory of God are under the curse of death.  This speaks for
God's righteousness and justice.  His saving some bears testimony to
His mercy (not to be confused with justice or injustice).  Why He
chooses some and not others is a mystery that Scripture does not
reveal to us (Rom 9:10-16).

This in a nutshell presents the view of salvation held by the Protestant
Reformers and is presented here to fill a void that I see in this string.

Ram

Hi Ram.  I thought election (though not mentioned by that word) was
covered in the first "option" of Patricia's; to wit:

>    1.  God chooses some for Salvation.  To them is given the free Gift of
>    salvation.  There is no human freedom.  To some is offered.  Those
>    offered accept.

I suppose the word "offered" is an unfortunate coupling with the first
three sentences.

By the way, this Arminian definitely believes in election and predestination,
but he also believes in free will to accept or reject God.  Because God is
infinite, He knows how the end will turn out.  Because we are not infinite
and do not know how the end will turn out, we must act as though we had free
will.  And indeed we do have free will, because without it, God could not
be love.  God Himself is recorded in several passages as giving man a choice.
I quote Deutoronomy 30:19 often (though I usually paraphrase it).  
Here's a quote:

Dt. 30:19b-20a (NIV)
I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.
Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you 
may love the Lord your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to Him.

Does God know how we will choose?  Yes.  He is God and knows everything.
Do we know how we will choose?  No.  Not until we make the choice.
Why is choice necessary?  Because without choice there is no love and
                          God is Love and wants us to love Him back for 
                          who He is, giving freely of ourselves.

This does not make our election cheaper, nor does it nullify the concept
of election.  It merely places election into perspective.

Mark

    Unfortunately, neither the 5 Points of Calvinism or Arminianism is 100%
    scriptural.  Each one only has 1-2 points that are correct.
    
    For instance, out of what was mentioned in .141, Christ didn't die just
    for the redeemed.  The Bible is clear that He died for all.  Also, God
    doesn't unconditionally saved anyone.  The conditions for salvation are
    clearly spelled out in scripture.
    
    regards,
    Mike

>The conditions for salvation are clearly spelled out in scripture.

Apparently more clear to some than to others, Mike.  Case in point:
some believe the conditions to be repentance, confession, baptism,
and profession.

All of these expressions are resultant FROM belief.

John 3:16 is still the pivotal verse:

  For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son
       that WHOSOEVER (that's anyone) BELIEVES (there the condition)
       SHALL NOT PERISH (that's the result of belief) but
       HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE.

Someone related to me this week that 
"faith is having confidence in God's integrity."

I like the way that is put.

Mark

    ...but if you're literally unconditionally saved (i.e., elect of God),
    then none of that would be necessary despite the Bible saying it is.
    
    Mike

Right.

Yes, there is a condition that you must believe.

When is not specified.  Instant of death?  When you face the judgment seat?

/john

>Yes, there is a condition that you must believe.
>
>When is not specified.  Instant of death?  When you face the judgment seat?
    
    According to Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:19-31 we know the decision must
    be made while alive.  
    
    regards,
    Mike

>>Yes, there is a condition that you must believe.
>>
>>When is not specified.  Instant of death?  When you face the judgment seat?
>    
>    According to Hebrews 9:27 and Luke 16:19-31 we know the decision must
>    be made while alive.  


Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
    judgment:


Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine
    linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate,
    full of sores,
 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's
    table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels
    into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham
    afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
    Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my
    tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy
    good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted,
    and thou art tormented.
 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so
    that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass
    to us, that would come from thence.
 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him
    to my father's house:
 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also
    come into this place of torment.
 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
    them.
 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the
    dead, they will repent.
 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
    will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

You folks bring up good questions, and strike a familiar chord since
I brought up the same questions a few years after I was saved when
first encountering reformed doctrine.  I hope I can show the same
wisdom and patience in explaining the Biblical basis for this
position as a couple of reformed pastors showed me.

I will attempt to discuss one point brought up earlier.  This is the
notion that God's election consists of his foreknowledge of man's
choosing to believe.  Please help me understand this position based
on Scripture and I will likewise try to explain the fallacy of this
scripturally.  All my quotations are taken from the the New American
Standard Bible.

Eph 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works
that we should walk in them.

The entire process of salvation is a gift from a Soveriegn and Almighty
God.  God elects, and then causes His Spirit to move in us to cause us
to want to turn to Him and believe.  What is our part in this process?
Nothing! If there is a requirement that I exercise my will to turn from
the love of sin to the Light, then this act is a work, and salvation is
a reward not a gift, contrary to the passage above.

Rom 9:15,16 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have
mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."  So then
it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on
God who has mercy.

Paul has just finished talking here about how God loved Jacob and hated
Esau (interesting considering the shady character of Jacob prior to his
regeneration).  And here, salvation is described as an act of mercy by
God, with no dependence on the will of man.  There is no contradiction
here with John 3:16 that was quoted in an earlier reply, since those
who believe are only those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit
and the Spirit regenerates God's elect.

I anticipate responses here that will fall into two major categories:
1. What about all the passages in the Bible that seem to indicate that
God "desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4)" and other such passages?
2. The reformed view makes God unjust

I am happy to discuss these should the need arise and as time permits.

Ram

>The entire process of salvation is a gift from a Soveriegn and Almighty
>God.  God elects, and then causes His Spirit to move in us to cause us
>to want to turn to Him and believe.  What is our part in this process?
>Nothing! 

Would you characterize *belief* as nothing?

>If there is a requirement that I exercise my will to turn from
>the love of sin to the Light, then this act is a work, and salvation is
>a reward not a gift, contrary to the passage above.

Would you characterize *belief* as a work?

>I anticipate responses here that will fall into two major categories:
>1. What about all the passages in the Bible that seem to indicate that
>God "desires all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4)" and other such passages?
>2. The reformed view makes God unjust

Your first anticipation is correct because what you have done is proof
text your position from selected pieces of Scripture and will thereby
color the "other" scriptures with this positional viewpoint.

The problem remains that both sides can proof text their positions.  Perhaps
the answer is that both of these positions cannot and do not exist in isolation
of each other.  There is a sermon by John Wesley entitled "Free Grace" in 
this conference somewhere that does a number on the position you espouse.
But again, the problem is not with your position.  I agree that it is found
in the Bible and is right and true... BUT it cannot, should not, and does
not stand in isolation of God granting us choice (Dt. 30:19).

May the Lord bless you, Ram, in your pursuit of the Truth.

Mark