Comments on: NT Sunday School Lesson 36 (JF): Romans

By: Kent Miles

Kent Miles — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:24:00 +0000

In there anything in the practice of contemporary “cultural Mormonism” that could be seen as similar to what the “Judahizers” in Paul’s day were requiring of the Gentile converts (i.e. their impulse to require compliance to the Law of Moses in order to be a good Christian)?

So, for example, do we have a tendency to think that all good comes from within the walls of Mormonism? Do we think that our own culture is the ultimate standard for good behavior? Do we limit our participation in the larger social milieu because it would involve association with those who do not observe our version of “the Law”?

I think that if we can see these kinds of connections it will help us to understand Paul’s world and its connection to our own time. It can also help us reconsider our own application of the Gospel.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:50:44 +0000

Knob, the more I thought about your question, the more I thought I ought to add something on the final chapters. After all, if chapter 12 is, as I believe, the hinge of the book as a whole (everything before it lays the groundwork for everything after it), then I’ve not provided enough study materials for the second part of the book. So I’ve added study questions for chapters 13-14.

Thanks for prompting me to do that.

By: Sean

Sean — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:28:01 +0000

Yeah, I knew the second after I posted that (and while I was posting it, but I was too tired and lazy to correct it) that I had it wrong, but I meant sanctus. My brain was foggy after leaving work yesterday, and whenever I hear the word “saint,” I think of “santo,” as in Santo Domingo, so I was like “santo! So easy!” I shouldn’t blog when I’m tired I know lol. I love latin! So many words derive from it! :D

Anyway, I’ll get back to you on Paul, I just got through reading several books on the development of Christian Theology. I recently encountered the opinion that Paul was a gnostic (I don’t believe he was) in a book titled A.D. 381 By Charles Freeman, which is a thesis, from an agnostic standpoint (the author happens to be agnostic, the best Christian Theology authors are IMO, since they are neutral) about how Roman Emperors, through politics, enforced the agendas of some Christian Schools (Such as the Nicene School) over others. I realize that the opinion of one historian isn’t scholar(s), but this wasn’t the first time I had heard of the Paul-Gnostic theory. I will try to find additional sources. It turns up enough to grab my attention and make me wonder why someone would be of that opinion. There is a book entitled “The Gnostic Paul,” by Elaine Pagels. I didn’t check it out, but I think I will now that I’m thinking about it.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:52:29 +0000

Knob, I don’t disagree that the message of chapter 14 is a great one, something that we ought to internalize and something that Paul preaches in several places. But I don’t think it is central to the message of the letter to the Romans, so yes, I skim over it. I focus instead on the more theological chapters. I finish with chapter 12 because it introduces the important question of what the theological chapters mean for Christian life. Chapter 14 is part of that.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 20:48:40 +0000

Sean, thanks for your responses. But one small correction: the English word “saint” is not from “santos.” It is from the French word “saint.” The French and the Spanish and the Italian words are all from the Latin word “sanctus.” According to the Oxford English Dictionary, that is the past participle of “sancire,” which means “to enact, ratify, devote, or consecrate.”

Can you refer me to scholars who think Paul was gnostic? That’s a new idea to me.

By: Knob

Knob — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 19:22:19 +0000

Do you really skip entirely over Romans 14, or only skim it? That, to me, is probably the best chapter in the NT… and we’d do worse than internalize the message contained therein.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:20:43 +0000

BTW, I’m pretty sure I got the “santos” reference wrong. I just got back from work and my brain is foggy. My apologies, but it’s definitely somewhere along those lines. I am totally sure “Sanctos” means to “make holy,” but my Latin is mediocre.

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 22:16:56 +0000

“What does the word “saint” mean? What does it mean to be called to be a saint? When do we receive that calling? How do we fulfill it?” I’m just passing through, was skimming the LDS blogs and read this and wanted to add my two cents. One, thanks for this post. Two, “Saints” comes from “santos,” which means holy, or set apart. We are called at baptism, and we can fulfill that calling by living our religion.

Okay, maybe more than two cents. “Verses 9-10: What does it mean to say that both the Jews and the Gentiles are “under sin”? In verse 10 Paul quotes Psalms 14:1 and 53:1. How can Paul be serious when he says that no one is righteous? For example, isn’t President Monson righteous? Compare these verses to verse 23. What is Paul’s point?” This is why there are many scholars who argue that Paul was a gnostic. This is one of the reasons that Augustine was such a consummate pessimist, and why Calvin followed after him. It talks of righteous people many times in the Bible, but I don’t think it means that they were perfect people. While the other Biblical writers describe the righteousness of certain individuals and peoples as essential qualities, Paul is focusing on the wickedness of people as the essential human condition. I think they are both right, but are coming at it from different angles. People can be very righteous, but ANY sin automatically bars us from heaven. That is why we need the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Paul was an apostle talking to Christians who knew of the atonement,so that’s what he was focusing on I think.

“Verses 19-20: The JST changes verse 20 in this way: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin; therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.” According to these two verses, what does the law teach us? What does it mean to be justified? Justified before whom? Why can’t the law justify us?” The law teaches us how to be like Christ. Justified in this context means (IMO) to be forgiven for our sins and be allowed access to heaven. Adherence to the law CANNOT by itself justify us, since we will at some point fall short of the law. Hence the atonement.

Anyway. Thanks once again, I’m going to be printing this out and reading Romans tonight.

By: NT Sunday School Lesson 36: Romans | Times & Seasons

NT Sunday School Lesson 36: Romans | Times & Seasons — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:35:09 +0000

[...] comment on this at Feast upon the Word. 0 people like this [...]