Pastor Jeffress - Theological Question

[_otoh]

Thanks ontheotherhand (I hope you don't mind if I shorthand this to otoh from here on out?)

I like that better!

[_Hoops]

Peter was already dead for centuries. Duh.

As were all the others. Duh.

[_Jersey Girl]

Peter was already dead for centuries. Duh.

As were all the others. Duh.

People. What are you talking about? Peter was already dead for centuries ....in relation to what?

[_otoh]

Would you happen to have any thoughts on the meaning of Romans 13? I read it more as instructions to subjects of governments who, at the time, were under Roman rule. It doesn't seem too out of place compared to other instruction by Paul for servants to obey their masters, etc.

I’m not a Bible scholar but to me it seems reasonable that we use some parts of the Bible to interpret other parts. The old testament is read and interpreted in light of the new testament. Paul’s epistles are read and interpreted in the light of the gospels. If there is any apparent conflict between the two then Jesus’ words would have more weight than Paul’s because he is after all the Word incarnate. Christians believe that the Word was made flesh, not paper and ink.

Romans 13 is preceded by Romans 12, the end of which reads

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Whatever Paul is saying in chapter 13 has to be reconciled with what he says above, which by the way is consistent with Jesus’ teachings in the gospels

[_Hoops]

People. What are you talking about? Peter was already dead for centuries ....in relation to what?

Harmony seems to think I didn't know Peter is dead, she adroitly educated me.

But the subject at hand is: something about Paul's writing being The Word.

[_Hoops]

I’m not a Bible scholar

Me neither.

but to me it seems reasonable that we use some parts of the Bible to interpret other parts.

Me to.

The old testament is read and interpreted in light of the new testament.

And the other way around.

Paul’s epistles are read and interpreted in the light of the gospels.

Ditto.

If there is any apparent conflict between the two then Jesus’ words would have more weight than Paul’s because he is after all the Word incarnate. Christians believe that the Word was made flesh, not paper and ink.

But we also believe that the apostles were "given" their teachings by The Holy Spirit - who is an equal member of the Godhead. So I'm not sure if I can support you here or not. True, Jesus is The Word made Flesh. But equally true that The Holy Spirit by the apostles set the foundations of the church, with Jesus as the cornerstone. The apostles conferred upon Paul his authority, his writings as scripture. That is a difference that Joseph Smith can not match.

But then, Peter is dead, so I guess that doesn't count.

[_otoh]

I don't read it, however, as some form of divine protection for government action. I don't read it as condemnation, either. Merely that Paul was telling a group of people in a certain place (and I may be off given the timeline, but I don't recall Rome being a great place to live as a Christian) how to live under that particular government and avoid trouble. In other words, do justly and don't break the laws because God is using the Romans as the sword to punish your breaking of the laws.

I'm also curious now about the statement "there is no power but of God"? Could one interpret this to mean any government that gets established automatically must have the sanction of God for some perhaps unknowable purpose?

I would agree with what you wrote above. I would view those passages as telling the Christians in Rome that when governments are exercising their legitimate authority to enforce the peace then they are fulfilling a God given appointment. I would not take it as implying that whatever a government does is somehow approved by God. As you can imagine, that quote "there is no power but of God" has been abused by secular rulers and tyrants for centuries. I would take it as suggesting that the Christian believers in Rome should accept the authority of the empire. Early Christianity was not a political movement nor aspired to political revolution. Its kingdom was not of this world as Jesus taught. So Paul is advising the believers in Rome to submit to Roman authority and not be seen as rebels and that even the wicked pagan Romans had a legitimate role to play.

[_Jersey Girl]

People. What are you talking about? Peter was already dead for centuries ....in relation to what?

Harmony seems to think I didn't know Peter is dead, she adroitly educated me.

But the subject at hand is: something about Paul's writing being The Word.

Okay, I obviously don't get the drift of this thread.

Bowing out....

[_otoh]

I think you're looking for division for division's sake.

That's ironic. A Protestant (I presume) who is worried about division in the Body of Christ.

I guess its a step in the right direction at least. You'll be crossing the Tiber before you know it.

[_Hoops]

That's ironic. A Protestant (I presume) who is worried about division in the Body of Christ.

I guess its a step in the right direction at least. You'll be crossing the Tiber before you know it.

Blather, blather, blather.