Bible Query from

Romans

Q: In Rom, why did Paul write this book?
A: Paul generally had met (or started) the churches he wrote to but Romans is an exception. Paul undoubtedly knew a few individuals, but Paul had never been to Rome. Ultimately Paul wrote Romans because God wanted Paul to. But Paul served as an apostle not just to the churches he started, but he was an apostle of Christ for all believers. Romans is generally considered the most logical and organized book by a well-organized author who generally wrote logically.
Paul wanted to write to them prior to his visiting them, and lay out, in detail, what is the gospel, why do we need it, and how does it work. He also wanted to explain salvation in the context of Jew and Gentile.
 

Q: In Rom, what is an outline of this book?
A: Here is one outline.
Rom 1:1-17 Paul's urgent message
Rom 1:18-3:20 Our Condemnation
- Rom 1:18 God's wrath against serious, spiraling, deadly sin
- Rom 2-3:20 Both Jews and Gentiles are without excuse, responsible for their guilt
Rom 3:21-5 Our Justification
- Rom 3:21-31 Christ justified us, not our works
- Rom 4 Abraham: Justified by faith
- Rom 5 Christ's death gave our justification
Rom 6-8 Our Sanctification
- Rom 6 We have been declared dead to sin
- Rom 7 Our ongoing struggle for sanctification
- Rom 8 The Holy Spirit: power for holy living
Rom 9-11 God's Sovereign Choice in Israel & Us
- Rom 9 God's past choice of Israel
- Rom 10 God's choice today
- Rom 11 God's future choice for Israel fulfilled
Rom 12-16 Living Out Our Salvation
- Rom 12 A consecrated life serving God & others
- Rom 13 A submissive life
- Rom 14 Loving the brethren
- - Without judging them or stumbling them, but as Christ would
- Rom 15:14-16:27 Paul's future plans and appreciation of others
 

Q: In Rom, when did Paul die?
A: It is generally agreed that Paul died under Nero, which would be during the persecution of 67 A.D.. Thus he wrote everything within 34 or so years after the death of Jesus.
We do not know Paul's exact age, but in Acts 7:58 Saul of Tarsus was a young man, and in Philemon 9 Paul was an old man.
 

Q: In Rom 1:4, since Jesus was declared the Son of God, was He the Son of God before?
A: Yes. Someone can be something before they are declared that to the world. There never was a time before Jesus was the Son of God, but God waited until Jesus was born on earth to declare this to humanity.
 

Q: In Rom 1:7 and 1 Cor 1:3, since the Greek word kai can mean "even" as well as "one", does this mean that Jesus is God the Father, as Sabellians, Modalists and some (but not all) Oneness Pentecostals teach?
A: No. Let's look at this objectively.
1. All agree that "and" is the primary meaning of the Greek word kai, but it does sometimes mean "even also".
2. You cannot prove Oneness, Trinity, or any doctrine, based on a word that could be translated either way.
3. In this chapter of Romans, Jesus is distinguished from God the Father in Romans 1:9. Jesus is not an orphan, neither is He a Fatherless Son.
4. Jesus also is distinguished from the Father in many places in Scripture, including but not limited to Ephesians 1:3,17; Matthew 3:16-17; 12:18; Mark 10:38-40; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:1,33; 6:38; 14:16,26,28,31; 5:26; 6:28; 7:5; Acts 5:31-32; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:25-28; Hebrews 1:9; 5:7-8. At Jesus baptism, Jesus was not practicing a ventriloquism act.
Sabellianism did not appear to have a wide following, except for a brief period in Rome. Here is some of what the pre-Nicene Christians taught that the Father and Son are distinct, yet they did not teach that they are separate.
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) says the Father, Son, and Spirit have distinction in unity. A Plea for Christians ch.12 p.134
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) "The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognize also a multitude of angels and ministers,..." A Plea for Christians ch.10 p.133
Theophilus (168-181/188 A.D.) (partial) "God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things." Theophilus to Autolycus book 2 ch.10 p.98
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) says "the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation." He then goes on quoting Proverb 3:19,20 and so forth, showing that the Holy Spirit is the third person. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.20.3 p.488
Tertullian (c.213 A.D.) "And if, to quote another passage, "Thus saith the Lord to my Lord Christ," the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a distinct Being. Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge," He must be other (than Christ), who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we may not wander through every passage, He "who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also to raise up our mortal bodies," must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the dead Father, or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father." Against Praxeas ch.28 p.625
Hippolytus (222-235/6 A.D.) wrote an entire work against Noetus who "alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died." Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.1 p.223
Hippolytus (222-235/236 A.D.) "He [Jesus] did not say, 'I and the Father am one, but are one.' For the word are is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power." and quotes 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.7 p.226
Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) "Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other." Commentary on John book 2 ch.2 p.323
Novatian (250/4-256/7 A.D.) (implied) spoke of Sabellius' heresy as sacrilegious in believing Christ is not the Son, but the Father. Treatise on the Trinity ch.12 p.621-622
Dionysius of Alexandria (246-265 A.D.) "The plant that springs from the root is something distinct from that whence it grows up; and yet it is of one nature with it. And the river which flows from the fountain is something distinct from the fountain. For we cannot call either the river a fountain, or the fountain a river. Nevertheless we allow that they are both one according to nature, and also one in substance; and we admit that the fountain may be conceived of as father, and that the river is what is begotten of the fountain." On the One Substance p.120
Lucian of Antioch (c.300-311 A.D.) "clearly of the Father who is really a Father, and of a Son who is really a Son, and of the Holy Ghost who is really a Holy Ghost; these names being assigned not vaguely or idly, but indicating accurately the special personality, order, and glory of those named, so that in Personality they are three, but in harmony one." Creed of Lucian of Antioch in The Creeds of Christendom by Philip Schaff vol.2 p.27
Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) "For the kingdom of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, even as their substance is one and their dominion one. Whence also, with one and the same adoration, we worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreate, without end, and to which there is no successor. For neither will the Father ever cease to be the Father, nor again the Son to be the Son and King, nor the Holy Ghost to be what in substance and personality He is. For nothing of the Trinity will suffer diminution, either in respect of eternity, or of communion, or of sovereignty. For not on that account is the Son of God called king, because for our sakes He was made man," Oration on Psalms ch.5 p.397. (also The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8 ch.10 p.338 and ch.11 p.339)
See When Cultists Ask p.207-208, 221 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 1:8, how was the faith of the Roman Christians known throughout the whole world?
A: This has the same meaning as 1 Thessalonians 1:8. Given the size and influence of the city of Rome, it is not an exaggeration to say that the Roman church had a great part in many people's first impressions of Christianity.
 

Q: In Rom 1:11 and Rom 15:29, isn't Paul a bit conceited to tell the Romans he wants to come to give them a spiritual gift?
A: If Paul were an ordinary man, perhaps. But since Paul was an apostle of Christ, Paul was being both candid and truthful without overstatement. It is OK to tell someone you can benefit them, if that is the truth.
 

Q: In Rom 1:18, how can people hold the truth in unrighteousness?
A: It is all too easy for people to agree at least partially on the truth of what is right and best for others, and not to practice it themselves.
 

Q: In Rom 1:18, how did people suppress the truth?
A: There are many ways, but here is one actual blatant way. The Romans had many pagan sacred institutions that they believed they had for various divine or miraculous reasons. Many of them were started by the early Roman King Numa Pompilius. The Roman historian Varro records that a Roman farmer Terentius, while plowing near the tomb of Pompilius, turned up books of Pompilius, in which were written the causes of the sacred institutions. He turned them over to the Senate, who after seeing the real reasons for the institutions, ordered the praetor to burn the books. You can read about this in Augustine of Hippo's City of God (413-426 A.D.) book 7 ch.34 p.141-141. When people burn the earliest copies of books of their own religion that they allegedly believe, you have to wonder about their commitment to truth.
 

Q: In Rom 1:19-20, how can everyone know of God through nature?
A: Five points to consider in the answer.
1. We can know many things about God through nature. For example, no created thing could create itself. There is a Creator, who is greater than created beings. We also can see God's majesty, power, and beauty in Creation, though Creation is fallen.
2. People can make up their own strange interpretations of the facts. For example, the idea of spontaneous generation, a "scientific fact" of the Middle Ages, said flies could come from rotting meat, and life could come spontaneously from non-life.
3. Many important things about God we cannot know through nature, such as the Trinity, Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus coming again.
4. While nature is not sufficient to teach the entire gospel of salvation, it is sufficient to teach people there is a God and to look for Him.
5. If someone rejects the truth that they know about the Most High God, God has not necessarily obligated Himself to give them more truth.
See Now That's a Good Question p.18-20 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 1:19-20, are all non-Christians going to Hell?
A: There is only one correct answer, but there are two aspects to it: no and yes.
No, for four reasons
N1.
No, because some people who are not yet Christians will become Christians in the future and go to Heaven. The Biblical term for those who ultimately will be in Heaven is "the elect".
N2. No, because in the Old Testament, many godly Jews, who obeyed the Law, died anticipating the coming of the Messiah, without knowing the Messiah (Ephesians 3:4-6; 1 Peter 1:10-11; 2 Peter 1:19; ~Hebrews 11:39-40). They died before Christ, but are in heaven.
N3. No, because God revealed Himself through Abraham, even though Abraham did not have the Law. God is able to work "outside the box" of our preconceptions, and to bring people to Himself through Christ as He chooses. We can be assured that all who died never hearing of Christ today, be they babies, the severely retarded, or people with severe ignorance, will be judged fairly by God, who is also merciful. (See Romans 4:15; 5:12; ~John 9:41)
N4. Some Christians think Christ preached to those who had already died based on 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 1 Peter 4:6. Clement of Alexandria in the Stromata (193-202 A.D.) book 6 ch.6 p.490, said those who were righteous according to God's Law, only faith was wanting. For those who did not have the Law, but were righteous according to their philosophy, they needed both faith and repentance of idolatry. "Straightaway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of the previous [idolatrous] conduct." See also Stromata book 6 ch.6 p.492. Irenaeus (Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.27.1 p.499), Hippolytus (Fragment from Commentary on Psalm 19 or 20 p.170. Also ch.7.14 p.189), and Origen (Origen Against Celsus book 2 ch.43 p.448) also taught that Christ preached to the dead to convert some.
Other Christians disagree with this though.
Yes, for four reasons
Y1.
All who are, were, or will ever be saved, are saved through the One and only Mediator and Savior, Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; John 10:7-8; John 10:26-28).
Y2. All need Jesus. Jesus told even the religious Jewish Pharisees, that if they did not believe in Him, they would indeed die in their sins. (John 8:24). Jesus warned them that their rejection of God would send them to Hell (Matthew 23:33-36).
Y3. Even infants who died before knowingly committing any transgression still need Jesus to sanctify them and cleanse them of their sinful nature. While they made no sinful choices, and never intended to do wrong, they still have a selfish, sinful nature and need transformation through Jesus before going to heaven.
Y4. Since Jesus saves everybody who will be saved, then everyone who goes to Heaven, sooner or later will believe in Christ (Romans 14:10-11; Philippians 2:9-11; John 6:37,45).
On point Y3, a Christian once disagreed with me on this, and said, that if they cannot make a decision for Jesus, then they cannot go to heaven. However, we have to see, at the most basic level, what is the one "thing" that saves us? Ultimately the root cause is not our decision that saves us, because it is not even "us" that saves us. At the most fundamental level, it is God who saves us. He saves all the saved through Jesus, but we do not exactly how He will to that for infants, those who lived before Christ, etc.. What we know is that He is God!
See When Critics Ask p.437-438 and Now That's a Good Question p.301-303 for more info. Read the book Eternity in Their Hearts, for how the true God may have revealed Himself to others apart from Bible, as God revealed Himself to Abram.
 

Q: In Rom 1:20, to what extent can people learn God's truth and the Gospel from observing Creation?
A: We can learn three things, but not learn a fourth thing.
1. The existence of some kind of Creator (personal or impersonal) from the existence of Creation.
2. God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1:20).
3. Some understanding of God's moral law (Romans 2:14-16).
From creation, people cannot learn of the mystery of Christ. (Ephesians 3:4-6,9; 6:19; Colossians 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; Romans 16:25-26; 1 Peter 1:10-12). See also the next question for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 1:20, could someone possibly be saved solely by believing what can be learned from Creation?
A: In reality, none are. Apart from God, none seek God, as Romans 3:9-20 says.
Hypothetically speaking, the question contains a false premise. The question assumes that God is passive, and if someone were seeking Him, God would simply sit there and not desire to draw them into the truth. Actually, God probably wants people to believe the truth more than people want to believe the truth themselves.
 

Q: In Rom 1:20 (KJV, NKJV, Green's Literal Translation), should this word be translated "Godhead" or "divine nature" as the NASB, NIV, NRSV, uNASB, NET Bible, and Williams say?
A: New Age Bible Versions Refuted p.23 points out that in the KJV "godhead" is used three times: in this verse and Acts 17:29 and Colossians 2:9. In each case it is a different Greek word. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, and Green's Literal Translation lose precision here, as they translate three different Greek words with the same English word in Romans 1:20. The point Paul is making here is that they are denying what they see of God's divine nature.
The RSV translates this word as "deity" and Wuest's Expanded Translation says "divine Being".
 

Q: In Rom 1:24,26,28, since God does not like ungodliness, then why did God desire to give ungodly people over to greater ungodliness?
A: God does not like ungodliness, but if someone wants to be ungodly, God lets them move in the direction they want to go. Romans 1 shows that one of the consequences of sin is the desire for worse sin. Either you are desiring to sin more, or you are hungering and thirsting for righteousness as Jesus commended in Matthew 5:6. By the way, Christians should never stop hungering and thirsting for more righteousness. See Now That's a Good Question p.165-166 for more info.
 

Q: Does Rom 1:26-27 mean only that one cannot change to be a homosexual, but if one is born a homosexual, it is OK to practice it?
A: No. Romans 1:26-27 says that both men and women sin terribly in exchanging natural relations for unnatural homosexual relations. Now some have suggested that only the "exchanging" is wicked, and it is OK to be homosexual if you were born that way. But this cannot be so. Not only is the emphasis in this verse on the relations themselves being "shameful", the word "exchange", metallaso, is the same Greek word used for exchanging the truth of God for a lie. So the problem is not just the "exchanging", but the "indecent acts with other men" as Romans 1:27 says. Since Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 show that the practice of homosexuality is evil, of course it is never OK to be in an evil state. This is true whether immorality is gay or straight, the point being that we all are born with a sinful nature and need to be born again to be holy. See also the discussion on Leviticus 18:22,24; 20:13, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Tertullian in de Corona ch.6 p.96 interprets Romans 1:26 as saying males and females changed among themselves the natural use into the unnatural "by way of penal retribution for their error." See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.543-545, When Cultists Ask p.210, and When Critics Ask p.438-439 for more info.
 

Q: On Rom 1:26-27 the skeptic Bart Ehrman writes, "In thinking about which parts of the Bible have something to say in the modern context, it is important to recall the historical view that the biblical authors were all living in a different world from ours and reflected the assumptions and beliefs of people in their world. Their world, to pick a particularly cogent example, had no concept of what we think of as homosexuality. To put it differently, homosexuality didn't exist in that world. Why? Not because men didn't have sex with men (they did) or women with women (they did), but because there was no sense of sexual orientation in that world, or any world, until the notion of sexual orientation developed among Western thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." (Jesus, Interrupted p.280)
Ehrman uses the two preceding examples to generalize. "So, too, with all the Bible's teachings - about women, about same-sex relations, about extra-marital sex, about capital punishment, about war, about wealth, about slavery, about disease, about ... well, about everything." (Jesus, Interrupted p.281)

A: Wow! Apparently Ehrman has not read the Old Testament in a very long time, especially Leviticus 21:22,29. Surely he does not think Leviticus 21 was "developed among Western thinkers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries"!
Whatever pagan later people did many centuries later did not affect the concept of same-sex relationships being evil for a Jewish person (such as Saul of Tarsus or even Jesus), because they could read the Old Testament. By the way, long before western nineteenth century thinkers existed, at least 11 early Christian writers wrote specifically against homosexuality prior to 325 A.D. You can see these at www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/WhatEarlyChristiansTaught.html. In my opinion, Ehrman is simply "amazing" here.
 

Q: In Rom 1:26-27, how does God give people over to the lust of their hearts?
A: One of the punishments of sin is more desire to sin. A consequence of sin is that it is a vicious cycle. You can think of unrepentant sin similar to an astronomical "black hole" that sucks in everything around it. Revelation 22:11 and Daniel 12:10 also imply that good and evil will both multiply. See Now That's a Good Question p.165 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 2:6-7, are good works a condition of salvation?
A: No. Three points to consider in the answer.
1. All should be able to agree that good works have some relationship to eternal life; the two should go hand in hand.
2. Absent from this passage is any concept of Christ's sacrifice being incomplete or insufficient. Also absent is the concept that people merit eternal life.
3. Since works are not a precondition of salvation, and they are related to salvation, then how are they related? Works are related as an output, a result of salvation, as both Ephesians 2:9-10 and James 2:18-26 show. They are a sign of salvation, just as a heartbeat is a sign that a person is alive.
See When Cultists Ask p.210-212 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.445 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 2:6, will judgment be different for different people?
A: Yes, in a number of ways.
For unbelievers, the punishment for some will be more severe than others, as Matthew 10:15; 11:22-24 and Mark 12:40 indicate.
For believers, there will be different rewards in Heaven, as Matthew 5:12; 10:42; 6:19-21; Luke 6:23; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; and Revelation 22:12 teach.
In general, Jesus in Matthew 5:7 says that those who show mercy will be shown mercy.
See Now That's a Good Question p.502-503 for a complementary answer.
 

Q: In Rom 2:7, do we get immortal life now, or later?
A: We get the fullness of eternal life later, but we receive the sure promise of it now. See the discussion on 1 Timothy 6:16 for more info. When Cultists Ask p.212-213 shows how a Christian has immortality from the moment she or he first believes.
 

Q: In Rom 2:11, since God is not a respecter of persons, why did He distinguish between Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:1-2), especially Moabites?
A: We first must distinguish between eternal justice and earthly situations and curses. The Bible teaches us that God is not a respecter of persons individually in many ways (such as salvation), but God is a respecter of persons and their nationality in other ways. Note that examples on both sides are found in the same books, so this contrast was not an accidental "mistake" by various authors, but a deliberate intention by Paul.
God is not a respecter of persons in judgment and for those who seek or reject Him:
For there is no respect of persons with God (or God does not show favoritism) in Romans 2:11 and Acts 10:34-35 (Peter is speaking). All have the same value to God (Galatians 3:28). God saves all who call upon Him (Romans 10:11-12). Salvation the same for Jews and Gentiles (Acts 17:26-27)
God does favor some: Scripture never claims God had everyone born under equal circumstances. Observations of life confirm this. Aaron was ordained to be a priest, and his actions at Mt. Sinai show he was not necessarily more deserving. Everyone in every culture has the opportunity to know enough about God through Creation, that they could seek to know more. Jesus promised in Matthew 7:7-12, that those who ask, seek, and knock, will receive, find, and have the door opened for them.
In summary,
1. In this life some people have better circumstances than others.
2. God judges everyone justly, and He takes all factors into account.
3. No matter what a person's circumstance, nobody has any excuse for not acting on the truth they already have know.
 

Q: In Rom 2:12, are all who never heard of the Old Testament Law or Christ, going to Hell with no chance of being saved?
A: No. Job was not necessarily a Jew, and God revealed Himself to Job. Abraham and everyone up to Moses, who did not have the Old Testament Law. Ultimately, it is not obedience to the Gospel that saves, or even the Gospel that saves. It is God who saves through Jesus, and He can do things however He wants.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.385-388, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.545-547, and When Cultists Ask p.208-209, and the book Eternity in Their Hearts for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 2:14, how are Gentiles allowed to be a law unto themselves?
A: This does not mean people can make up whatever law and morality they wish to follow. It does mean
1) All have some idea of the truth, in nature and their conscience (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-16).
2) All are responsible to follow all the truth they know (Romans 2:15).
3) All who try to follow the truth they know will fall short (Romans 3:23) and be conscious of that.
4) God is just; sin is not counted where there is no law (Romans 4:15; 5:13).
5) However, some ignorance is not innocent ignorance (Romans 1:21-22,25).
 

Q: In Rom 2:16, does Paul have "his own Gospel" he preaches?
A: There is only One true Gospel (Galatians 1:8), but it was also Paul's, just as it is our's.
 

Q: In Rom 2:24, how was the name of God blasphemed through the Jews?
A: The Jews were God's chosen people, yet through their disobedience, wickedness, and rejection of the Messiah, they did not act like God's people. The evil actions of those who were considered God's people dishonored God in the eyes of others.
Today, every Christian who is known to others as a Christian is a witness for God. The issue then, is not whether or not you are a witness, but whether you are a good witness or a bad witness.
 

Q: In Rom 2:24, why does this blasphemy matter? In other words, who is hearing and seeing this blasphemy?
A: Romans 2:24 says the Gentiles (non-Jews) see the blasphemy by the Jews. It matters in two ways.
1. It tends to drive people away from God to see those who are called God's people blaspheme God's name.
2. God says He is a jealous God. Part of that is that God does not like His name and reputation slandered and dishonored.
 

Q: In Rom 3:4, what does "let God be true and every man a liar" mean?
A: It does not excuse anyone's lying. Rather, it means that God is still true, even if every single person on earth were to think otherwise. God being true is an absolute. Ephesians 4:25 says we are to put off falsehood and speak truthfully.
 

Q: In Rom 3:5, how does people's unrighteousness commend God's righteousness?
A: Righteousness and unrighteousness are not equal and opposites. Rather, unrighteousness is a deficiency or twisting of God's righteousness. As evidence of this, even in their unrighteousness, people often recognize they are unrighteous, and they prefer righteousness, - at least in others.
 

Q: In Rom 3:7, do people's lies glorify God?
A: People's lies never directly glorify God. However, Romans 3:7 is relating the amazing fact that despite people's lies and deception, people in general still acknowledge God and his moral law.
 

Q: In Rom 3:8, why shouldn't we do evil so that good may result? (The Russian Khlysty cult and evil libertine Grigori Rasputin taught this.)
A: If this were true, then Satan would have caused more good than anyone else. God many times does use evil for good. That does not justify people doing evil, or keep people who lived like Rasputin from suffering the consequences in the Lake of Fire for their evil. See the discussion on Romans 6:1,15 for more info.
When asked why he said that sin is indispensable before God, Rasputin answered "'Certainly, little father' he said, 'our Saviour and the holy fathers have denounced sin, since it is a work of the Evil One. But how can you drive out evil, little father, except by sincere repentance? And how can you sincerely repent, if you have not sinned? ...Away with your Scriptures!' he thundered. 'Scriptures! Truly, I warn you, little father, cease this vain and useless labour so that you may stand before the Lord. Take life as it is, for it alone is given you by God. And let me say this to you. Be not for ever brooding on whence comes sin, on how many prayers a man must say a day, and how long he must fast to escape from sin! Sin, if sin still lurks in you; only in this way can you overcome it! Sin, then you will repent and drive evil from you. So long as you bear sin secretly within you, and fearfully cover it up with fasting, prayer, and eternal discussion of the Scriptures, so long will you remain hypocrites and good-for-nothings, and such are hateful to the Lord. The filth must be expelled, do you hear, little father? Only then will your savour be well pleasing to the Lord?'" (Rasputin : The Holy Devil p.54-55)
Notice his perverse logic.
1) Since this is bad, you should repent of sin.
2) You cannot repent of sin unless you have sinned.
3) Therefore to overcome sin in you, first go commit sin!
People are clever enough to make up some excuse to justify almost any evil thing, at least in their own mind, if they try really hard.
 

Q: In Rom 3:11, Ps 14:2-3, Ps 53:3, since no one seeks after God, how could David seek after God in Ps 27:8, 105:4; 31:1, 34:4; 28:1-2, 42:1-2; 120:1?
A: Romans 3:11 is actually quoting from David in Psalm 14:2. There are five points to consider in the answer.
1. Many, including David, do genuinely seek God.
2. No one, including David, seeks God on their own.
3. God loved us before we loved Him (1 John 4:19), and God sought us before we sought Him. No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44).
4. Even our faith, and our seeking God, is a gift given by God.
5. A key role of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of guilt in regard to sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8-11). Thus, God has given everyone some witness. Presumably everyone has been given the gift of at least some ability to seek Him. Some genuine Christians disagree on this last point, though.
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) said this in his Commentary on Galatians ch.2 verse 23 p.23 when referring to Psalm 63:1: "Moreover, this language teaches that each individual justly owes as a great debt of gratitude to Christ, as if He had come for his sake alone, for He would not have grudged this His condescension though but for one, so that the measure of His love to each is as great as to the whole world. Truly the Sacrifice was offered for all mankind, and was sufficient to save all, but those who enjoy the blessing are the believing only." John Chrysostom mentions that the supper was prepared for all in Luke 14:16, yet when the guests did not come, he called in others. (This is from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers First Series vol.13 p.23.)
 

Q: In Rom 3:13-19, do these Old Testament passages refer to some evil people, or all people?
A: They refer to all of us, to some degree or another. One of the passages quoted, Psalms 14:1-3, explicitly says it refers to everyone. Besides that, James 2:10 says that whoever keeps all the law except one point, is still guilty of breaking the law.
 

Q: In Rom 3:23-24, if all who are justified are the same as all who sinned, then are all going to Heaven as universalists teach?
A: No, universalism is a heresy. See the discussion on Colossians 1:20 for the answer.
 

Q: In Rom 3:25, since Christ's death is a propitiation for all our past sins, then if a Christian deliberately sins, does he or she go to Hell, as Heb 10:26-31 might suggest?
A: No. God not only gave us salvation, God sustains our salvation, as 1 John 1:8-10 and 1 John 2:2 show.
 

Q: In Rom 3:27-28, is Paul speaking of works of the Mosaic Law, or good works in general?
A: First of all, there is only one law, God's Law. While Paul has in view the commandments the Jews learned (Romans 3:21), Paul did not forget the parts of God's Law the Gentiles had, as he specifically mentions them in Romans 3:29-30.
Let's assume as true for a second, what some have falsely said, that Paul is only speaking of the Mosaic Law not being able to help merit salvation, and therefore it is possible that good works can partially merit salvation. Now the Mosaic Law did not only say the bad things they could not do, it also specified the good things they should do. If what some have falsely said were true, then the Commandments God gave would not be able to help them merit salvation, but other commandments that God did not give (through forgetfulness, meanness, or some reason) would be able to do so.
The root issue here is that there is only One God, and people either are trying to obey or disobey Him. Not only does this verse not show that good works can merit salvation, but Ephesians 2:8-9 proves they cannot.
To better see the relationship between a faith expressing itself in action, and not being justified by works, see the very next chapter in the Bible, Romans 4.
See also When Cultists Ask p.213-214 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 3:28, how is a man "justified by faith without deeds of the law", while James 2:24 says "by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone"?
A: We are saved by grace through faith alone, but true faith is not alone, but accompanied by works. The answer is shown in an analogy: "It is impossible, indeed, to separate works from faith, just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire." This quote was from Martin Luther. If you and your friends were around a campfire cooking your food, a "camper" named Paul might point out that it is not the light from the fire that cooks the food but the heat. He would also add that shining your flashlight on the campfire does absolutely nothing to help either. Another "camper" named James would say that you can't tell if the fire is still there to cook the food except by the light. He would say, if there was no light, then there wasn't any cooking.
See the discussion on James 2:14-25 for a more extensive answer.
 

Q: In Rom 4:1, how was Abraham Paul's father as pertaining to the flesh?
A: The word for father was also used for ancestor, and since Paul was a Jew, Abraham was his ancestor.
 

Q: In Rom 4:4-5:15, what contrasts are mentioned between Adam's fall and Christ's sacrifice?
A: There are three contrasts.
1. One is a result, and the other is a gift (Romans 4:4-5).
2. The gift differed in degree from the trespass (Romans 5:15). The gift more than corrected the failing of the trespass.
3. They differed in kind. The gift brought justification and life, trespass brought condemnation and death (Romans 5:16-17).
 

Q: In Rom 4:8,22, if God did not impute sin to Abraham, was God fair to those He does impute sin?
A: Yes. Romans 4:23-24 says that imputing righteousness instead of sin to Abraham was not a solitary case. The same is true for us, if we believe on God. However, for those who trust in their own righteousness instead of God's, they will be judged on what they did and did not do as Revelation 20:12 and Matthew 25:32-46 show.
 

Q: In Rom 4:16, why do we need to have faith, instead of certainty?
A: Think about it: Angels do not have faith like us, they have knowledge. There is no salvation through Christ for fallen angels, who knew what they were giving up according to Hebrews 2:16.
We do not have free will in the same manner that angels and demons do. They have certain knowledge, we have faith. God could have chosen to come to earth every year, prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that He was going to judge everyone, and then tell everyone to freely choose to accept or reject Him. It would not seem like as much of a choice. Rather, it is easy for one to choose not to look into these things, remain in uncertainty and doubt, and go their own way.
God could have made beings that chose to follow Him because they knew for certain how everything was. God did, and they are called angels. God made us, fallen people. Despite our sinful nature, and despite us not having certain knowledge, God has enabled us to choose to come to Him.
 

Q: In Rom 4:17,18, how was Abraham the father of many nations?
A: Abraham was the ancestor of the Israelites, Edomites, and Midianites, but that is not the main intent of this verse. Rather, Abraham was the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11) both Jew and Gentiles from all nations.
 

Q: How does Rom 5:1-10 say the exchange of salvation occurs?
A: There are eight aspects.
1. Justified through faith (5:1).
2. Access by faith (5:2) into this grace (5:2).
3. The love of God is spread in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (5:5).
4. When we were powerless, Christ died for the ungodly (5:6).
5. God demonstrated His love (5:8).
6. While we were sinners, Christ died for us (5:8).
7. Justified by Christ's blood (5:9).
8. Reconciled by the death of God's Son, Jesus (5:10).
 

Q: In Rom 5:2, 9-10, is salvation by grace, or by faith?
A: The origin, power, sufficient strength, and effect is by God's grace of sending Jesus to die for our sins. See Ephesians 2:5,8,9.
God chose to mediate this gift through our faith in Jesus.
 

Q: In Rom 5:6, before Christ died for us, were we all really without all strength?
A: -In all ways that matter, yes. See Romans 3:9-20 for a more detailed description by Paul.
 

Q: In Rom 5:7 (KJV), what does "peradventure" mean?
A: This is translated in today's English as "might", "possibly", or "might possibly".
 

Q: In Rom 5:9, how are we saved from God's wrath?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. We were not free from wrath from birth, because at one time even the elect (heaven-bound) were objects of wrath in Ephesians 2:3. (Charles Spurgeon makes the same point in "For Whom Did Christ Die?" Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit vol.20 no.1191 p.11)
2. We are free from God's wrath at the last judgment.
3. However, God may still discipline us (Hebrews 12:5-11), and we still can suffer the wrath of men (Romans 8:36).
 

Q: In Rom 5:9-21, what results are mentioned because of Christ?
A: This is actually a complex topic. Here are the mentioned results.
1. Justified by his blood. Save from God's wrath through him. (Romans 5:9)
2. Reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Romans 5:10).
3. Saved through his life (Romans 5:10).
4. God's gift and grace overflowed to the many (Romans 5:15).
5. Brought justification (Romans 5:16).
6. Provision of grace and gift of righteousness reign in life (Romans 5:17).
7. Grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life (Romans 5:21).
8. Justification that brings life for all men (Romans 5:18).
9. Many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19).
 

Q: In Rom 5:10, were Christians reconciled by Christ's death, or his life, and what is the difference Paul is trying to show?
A: Paul is trying to show that Jesus did more than one thing for us. By His death, Jesus paid the price for our sin. By rising again, He gives us life and has become our life. Finally, if we are justified by grace through faith, the evidence will be clear, by our good works.
 

Q: Does Rom 5:12 show that before birth we are only potential human beings, and not actual ones? (so that abortion would be OK)
A: No. This verse does not refer to the time between conception and birth, but the time of Adam before our conception. See also the discussion on Hebrews 7:9-10. See the New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology p.131-133 for more info on abortion.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-19, how is Adam's curse to us a "type" of Christ's imputation of righteousness?
A: All Christians agree on the following.
1. All people received death, corruption, sinful nature, and curses because of what Adam did.
2. Jesus bore the punishment for our sins.
3. The elect receive eternal life, righteousness, sanctification, and blessings from Christ.
Christians disagree on the following:
Some genuine Christians say that for Adam to us, us to Christ, and Christ to believers, the nature of the imputation is the same. (Charles Hodge in Systematic Theology p.194 and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans p.142-190). Some go so far as to teach that if God had not pronounced all humans, infants included, guilty and worthy of God's wrath for what Adam did, then God would not have the "right" to impute Christ's righteousness to all the elect. All die, even babies, thus proving they have the curse and the guilt of Adam.
However, there are at least three key inconsistencies with this view.
1. If all people "merited" Adam's guilt, then if the imputation is the same as Hodge says, Christ "merited" our guilt. And did Jesus merit Eve's guilt?
2. If the reprobate took Adam's guilt, then Adam did not have the guilt anymore, or else God gives actual punishment for the same guilt twice.
3. Baby animals die too. Nature bore the curse of Adam's sin, but death no more proves baby humans are guilty for Adam's sin, than baby puppies are guilty for Adam's sin.
Many other genuine Christians strongly disagree that we have Adam's guilt. Jesus was not guilty of any sin, not even ours. Rather Jesus chose to bear the consequences of our guilt by dying on the cross and descending to the grave. While Jesus bore our sin (Hebrews 9:28), and Him who had no sin became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), Jesus still remained without sin (Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22), and in Him is no sin (1 John 3:5).
Perhaps in agreeing to disagree, here is something all Christians can agree on: We stood as guilty sinners for our own sins. We are as much a guilty sinner for Adam's sin as Christ is a guilty sinner for our sin.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-21, how do the curse and imputed righteousness differ?
A: The view of Charles Hodge that the nature of the imputation is the same for both Adam and Christ is not correct for at least eight reasons.
1. Christ bore our punishment and we receive His righteousness in a great two-way exchange, but in a one-way transfer, Adam bore nothing from us.
2. Our guilt was removed by Christ, but Adam's guilt was not lessened by us in any way.
3. Evil came into us, but evil did not come into Christ.
4. We received corruption and sinful nature from Adam, but Christ did not receive corruption, sinful nature, guilt, or blame.
5. Imputation of Christ's righteousness is mediated by our faith, but there is no faith or even lack of faith involved in Adam's sin. (Douglas Moo Commentary on Romans 1-8 p.338-339.)
6. Christ chose to atone for us; Adam did not voluntary choose to transfer anything to His offspring.
7. Christ's righteousness is given to us with our consent with Christ. Adam's curse (and some believe guilt) was involuntary on our part.
8. Christ's righteousness was not "transmitted" through parents. Some Christians have what is called a traducian theology; they believe Adam's guilt is transmitted through parents or else through the father.
Unless someone would deny these eight differences (and I think even Charles Hodge would not), then it is inconsistent to say the nature of imputation is the same.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-21, how is the atonement linked with Adam's fall?
A: All Christians agree the atonement is linked with Adam's fall in the following two ways.
1. "As we received sinful nature from Adam, we are being sanctified to be Christlike.
2. In addition, as we were born alienated from God due to Adam, we are reborn as God's children in Christ.
All Christians do not necessarily agree with the following three ways.
3. The NIV Study Bible p.1713 says that Romans 5:18 "does not mean that everyone eventually will be saved, but that salvation is available to all. To be effective, God's gracious gift must be received (see v.17)"
4. We received curses from Adam and grace from Christ, but Jesus is no more guilty for our sins than we are for Adam's.
5. If God did not impute Adam's guilt to us, God could not impute Christ's righteousness.
6. If God does not punish the reprobate with extra torment in Hell, Jesus would be unable to choose to take our punishment.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12, what does "Because of this" refer to?
A: This directly refers to what has previously been said about justification in Romans 5:1-22. Since each chapter of Romans builds on the previous parts, one can see it referring indirectly to all the preceding book of Romans.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-19, what is mentioned as the scope of each Adam's Fall and Christ's sacrifice?
A: Christians sometimes debate whether Christ's atonement significant for everyone (universal), or only significant for some (particular). Both sides can see their favorite aspect here.
Adam's sin: All (5:12,18), and the many (5:15,19).
Jesus' justification: the same scope. All (5:18), and the many (5:15,19).
Adam was the pattern (type), with contrasts, (5:14); condemnation and justification are very symmetric in the passage.
See also 1 Corinthians 15:21-22,45-49.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-21, what are the links between us and Adam?
A: Scripture does not say, but here are possible views. Each view includes the preceding view.
1. People suffer in this life for what Adam did.
2. We all did the same thing. Adam is an example of us.
3. We inherited sin, that is, a sinful nature.
4. God decided we would inherit the guilt of the one God chose (Adam) to be our representative.
5. Children (including Jewish and Croatian children) inherit the guilt for the crimes of their ancestors. (1/3 of Traducian view)
 

Q: In Rom 5:12, how did all sin in Adam?
A: Adam and Eve sinned without first having a sinful nature. We all sin, having Adam's sinful nature. Beyond this, Christians disagree on this. Here are some views.
Demonstrated result: Because we all sin, that result demonstrates that death and sin came to all men born through Adam. (See Douglas Moo's Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary on Romans 1-8 p.339.)
Participation in the Curse only: Because of the cause (Adam), the result is that we (humanity) all have the curses of death and a sinful nature. (Romans 5:14)
Participation in both Guilt and Curse: Because of the cause (Adam), the result is that we (humanity) all sinned by participation with Adam, and we also all have the curse of deaths and a sinful nature.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-14, if God condemned us with Adam's guilt, then why?
A: Genuine Christians disagree, with three main views.
1. Adam's guilt was not imputed to us, only his nature and curses.
2. Just as God is compelled to punish sin by the demands of justice and holiness in his nature, God is compelled by the demands of justice to impute Adam's guilt to us.
3. God did not have to impute Adam's guilt to us to satisfy the demands of justice, but He did it anyway for other reasons.
3a. If God had not framed us for Adam's guilt, then He could not have justly "framed" Christ as a sacrifice for our sins.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-18, what is original sin?
A: Original sin is a concept with two parts:
1. We all inherited a sinful nature, and by birth are estranged from God.
2. We all have guilt, not just for our own sins, but also for Adam's sin.
Christians are in agreement with the first point, but most Christians believe the second point is wrong. Among the first people to teach the second point were Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.) and Augustine of Hippo. Both of them were among the first Christians to support persecution of non-Christians. The New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology p.641-643 says on original sin "More seriously, there is an incompatibility between the notion of guilt and that of inheritance. Our language of the guiltiness of human persons seems meaningful only in the context of decision and acts in which we are ourselves in some means involved."
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-18, how is Adam's guilt imputed to us (if at all)?
A: Romans 5:12-18 does not say exactly how. Christians greatly differ on the answer to this question. Here are some statements, and people can believe more than one.
1. We inherit Adam's nature, but we never had Adam's guilt imputed to us in any way.
2. All had Adam's guilt, but in Christ, Adam's guilt was forgiven and removed for 100% of all people. (Prevenient Grace theory)
3. Adam's guilt is forgiven and removed for all, as in the previous, but it is reapplied for those who reject Christ (Millard Erickson's view).
4. All had Adam's guilt, but in Christ, Adam's guilt is forgiven and removed for the elect.
5. Babies might possibly be in the Lake of Fire solely due to Adam's guilt, with no personal guilt of their own.
6. People in the Lake of Fire can blame part of their suffering on Adam's sin.
7. Because of our imputation, Adam's own guilt was decreased.
8. Adam's guilt was not decreased, and God counted guilt twice.
9. Adam's guilt is imputed to us, but not in any meaningful way.
Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can agree with the Calvinist New Geneva Study Bible p.1775 here. It says all sinned in the sin of Adam but states Romans 5:12-21 does not say how.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-19, who are some Christians who believe Adam's guilt was not imputed to us at all?
A: All of the pre-Nicene church writers never spoke of us bearing the guilt of Adam's sin, even though they quoted from Romans 5.

Justin Martyr (wrote about c.138-165 A.D.)
Athenagoras (c.177 A.D.)
Clement of Alexandria (wrote 193- 217/220 A.D.)
Arnobius? (297-303 A.D.)
Athanasius (leader at Nicea) (326-373 A.D.)
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394 A.D.)
Basil of Cappadocia (357-379 A.D.)
Gregory of Nazianzus/Nanzianzus (330-391 A.D.) (implied) (On the Theophnay ch.13 p.349)
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) (Matthew homily 28:3)
Greek Orthodox church (traducian view of the soul, not no inherited guilt)
Conference of the Society of Friends 1675
Ulrich Zwingli (1454-1531) and Zwinglians (according to Menschreck p.198)
Andreas Karlstadt (Reformer) (1480-1541)
Menno Simons (1495/6-1561) (founder of the Mennonites)
Dirk Philips (1504-1568) (Mennonite)
John Smyth (1570-1612) (General Baptist)
Thomas Helwys (1575-1616) (General Baptist)
Johannes Wollebius (1626-1629)
John Wesley (1703-1791) (worked with Whitfield)
Conservative Methodists
Thomas Coke (1747-1814 Methodist)
Dan Taylor (1738-1816) (General Baptist)
Francis Asbury (1745-1816) (Methodist)
Lyman Beecher (1775-1863)
D.L. Moody? (1837-1899)
Charles W. Carter
Wolfgang Pannenberg (liberal theologian)
Stuart Denney
Gore Sanday-Headlam
Cranfield
Church of the Nazarene denomination
Assemblies of God denomination
Vast majority of Charismatics
Walter Connor (influential professor at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary)
Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination
The New dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (IVP)

Athanasius believed we inherited a sin nature, "But Athanasius never hints that we participate in Adam's actual guilt, i.e. his moral culpability,..." (Kelly Early Christian Doctrines p.346-347)
"Helwys's understanding of predestination, except perhaps for the doctrine of the fall of humanity in Adam, is anti-Calvinist - in fact, typically Dutch Baptist. Any imputation of Adam's sin, or the natural effect of Adam's fall, is nullified with respect to salvation, since grace is granted to all, to choose for or against God. "(Calvin Augustine Pater in Karlstadt as the Father of Baptist Movements, the Resurgence of Lay Protestantism p.267-268)
Is it granted to all, to choose for or against God with respect to salvation? The answer to this question is one of the main ways of demarcating a Calvinist from a non-Calvinist.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12-19, who are some Christians who believe Adam's guilt was imputed to us?
A: Augustine of Hippo (388-430 A.D.) (He also believed all unbaptized infants go to Hell.)

Ambrose of Milan (w.370-390 A.D.) On the Mysteries 6 (p.321). Shows Adam's guilt removed after baptism by washing the feet.
Prosper of Aquitaine (390-463 A.D.)
Vincent of Lérins (c.434 A.D. semi-Pelagian)
Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 A.D.)
John Wycliffe? (1331-1384)
Council of Trent (1546 A.D.)
Martin Bucer (b.1491-1551)
John Calvin (1509-1564) and Guillaume Farel (1489-1565)
John Knox (w.1546-1572)
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)
Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
Westminster Confession (1646)
John Owen (1616-1683)
John Bunyan (1628-1688)
Johannes Cocceius (w.1669-1699) (main proponent of covenant theology)
George Whitfield (1714-1770) (Calvinist worked with Wesley)
John Gill (1697-1771) (hyper-Calvinist)
Augustus Toplady (b.1740-1778) (Wesley's critic)
Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
A.A. Hodge (1823-1886)
C.H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)
B.B. Warfield (1851-1921)
A.W. Pink (1886-1952) (a hyper-Calvinist)
John Murray (1989-1975)
J. Vernon McGee (b.1904-1988)
Loraine Boettner (w.1929-1990)
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994)
Baptists (Original Baptists and some today)
R.C. Sproul (1939-)
Douglas Moo (1950-) (tentatively, after a 42 page discussion)
Believers Bible Commentary
Wycliffe Bible Dictionary (p.589)
The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Federal Headship or Traducianism)

 

Q: In Rom 5:12-19, are there any other views genuine Christians have of whether or not we have Adam's guilt?
A: There are three other views.
1. All have Adam's guilt, but Christ provided "prevenient grace", which cancels Adam's guilt for all.

H. Orton Wiley (1877-1961)
Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe When Critics Ask p.441)

2. Adam's guilt is imputed only after we choose to sin
Millard Erickson (Christian Theology p.639)
Dr. Honer, Dave Geisler, James P. Boyce (1827-1888) (Baptist theologian)

3. We bear the guilt for Adam's sin, and we also bear the guilt for our ancestor's sin.
Anselm (1033-1109)
Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Philip Melanchthon (Should kill those who differ) (1497-1562)
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
William G.T. Shedd (1820-1894)
A.H. Strong (1836-1921)

 

Q: In Rom 5:12, are there any extra-Biblical Jewish writings resembling this passage?
A: Yes. Jewish writings resembling Romans 5:12 are 4 Ezra 7:118 (=2 Esdras 7:118), Sirach 25:25, and 2 Baruch 23:4; 48:42; 54:19.
According to Hard Sayings of the Bible p.548, here is what 2 Esdras says,
"[Adam] transgressed ... Thou didst appoint death for him and for his descendants....
For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent." (2 Esdras 3:7, 21-22)
"O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants." (2 Esdras 7:118).
Note that this speaks of the consequences to us: we are fallen, diseased, and have death. It does not say we are guilty for Adam's sin.
 

Q: In Rom 5:12, how did Augustine of Hippo and the Latin Vulgate mistranslate this passage?
A: Romans 5:12 was misunderstood by Augustine (v.5 p.302), according to M. Erickson (p.636), C. Daniel (p.242), and J.N.D. Kelly (p.354), since the Latin Vulgate says "in whom" (in quo) while the Greek says "because".
 

Q: In Rom 5:12, did God blame or "frame" everybody for Adam's guilt as well as their own?
A: From the start of the Middle Ages onward, the Catholic, Reformed, and many Lutheran churches have taught that we bear Adam's guilt as well as our own. As some Reformed Christians have affirmed when I questioned them, only part of the suffering of people in Hell is for what they did. Part of the suffering is also not for anything they did, but they are being punished by God for what Adam did.
However, this concept was absent from the early church, (until Ambrose and Augustine), and absent from those who spoke the koine dialect of Greek which was the language of the New Testament.
Justin Martyr (c.150 A.D.) "And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions..." (First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.43 p.177) "The words cited above, David uttered 1500 years before Christ... But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain.". (The First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.43,44 p.177 )
Athenagoras (177 A.D.) "Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless and vice and virtue were in their own power" A Plea for Christians ch.24 p.142
Basil of Cappadocia (357-379 A.D.) Prolegomena "On the other hand, of the evils of hell the cause is not God, but ourselves. The origin and root of sin is what is in our own control and our free will." (Prolegomena in the Nicene & Post-Nicene Church Fathers Second Series vol. 8 p.lviii)
 

Q: In Rom 5:14 (KJV), what is the "similitude" of Adam's transgression?
A: The King James Version correctly translates this word, but today we would use the word "likeness".
 

Q: In Rom 5:15, does the physical death of all people mean that we are all guilty of Adam's sin, even babies?
A: No. If physical death was proof of guilt in Adam, then animals would be guilty of Adam's sin too, because they physically die. The physical death of Adam's descendents is a curse and a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin, but it does not prove God calls us guilty for the sins of someone else. Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24:16 show that a person does not die for his father's sin, but only for his own.
 

Q: In Rom 5:16,18, by what process was condemnation the result of one sin?
A: Christians disagree on this. Here are six possibilities, and one can believe a combination of them.
1. Not specified. New Geneva Study Bible footnote on p.1775 says, "Paul does not explain how all mankind was involved with Adam in his sinning, but simply asserts the fact. All sinned in the sin of Adam."
2. Children (example: AIDS babies) can inherit, in this life, the consequences of sins, even though they were not the guilty ones.
3. More important than 2, God condemned each one of us (us and Adam) because of what each one of us has done.
4. In addition to 2-3, we inherited Adam's fallen, sinful separated nature, and this nature guarantees we will sin and be condemned.
5. In addition to 2-4, because God pronounced people guilty for acts they did not do. (Thus it is not at all inconsistent with God's justice to send unbaptized babies and fetuses to be tortured forever in Hell for though they never committed any sinful acts or transgressed any law. Even though they were unaware of the sins, and framed for another's crimes, God is still just with a divine, incomprehensible justice.) (Federal Headship view) See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.388-390 for more on the Federal Headship view.
6. In addition to 2-5, children are condemned before man and God for the crimes of their parents and ancestors, since their souls were created from the parents' souls. (1/3 of Traducian view)
 

Q: In Rom 5:19, how were the many made sinners?
A: As in the previous question, Christians disagree on this. Again, here are six possibilities, and one can believe a combination of them.
1. This scripture does not explicitly say how.
2. We were made mortal and the door was opened for sin.
3. More important than 2, as God judged Adam for what he did, God judges each of us for what we did in the same way.
4. In addition to 2-3 we are not only sinners because we sin, but also we sin because we are sinners, in other words, we have a sinful nature.
5. In addition to 2-4, we are liable for what we are not personally guilty of (Boettner p.77-78), or sins we did not personally commit (ibid p.238).
6. In addition to 2-5, anyone born of a traitor, adulterer, or sinner, should be punished as a traitor, adulterer, or sinner. (1/3 of Traducian view, which is contrary to Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24:16.)
 

Q: In Rom 5:19, if all are made sinners in Adam, and all are made righteous in Christ, does this mean everyone gets saved, as the heresy of universalism teaches?
A: The Children of God cult taught this. Genuine Christians (at least after Rufinus) agree universalism is wrong, but Non-Calvinists and Calvinists have two very different reasons why.
Non-Calvinists include "4-point Calvinists", Lutherans, "Calminians", Arminians, and others. They say that Christ offered the payment for everyone. A common illustration is this: Say a man owed a million-dollar debt he could not pay. A generous, wealthy friend opened a bank account, in the man's name with a million dollars in it, and told the man to withdraw a million dollars and pay the debt. Suppose the man did not believe the wealthy friend, or else withdrew the money and squandered it. Then the man would still be liable for his debt, despite the generosity of the wealthy friend.
Scripturally, this is the conclusion of three teachings from Scripture.
N1. Christ atoned for all (1 Timothy 2:5-6; 1 John 2:2; Romans 11:32; 1 Timothy 4:10), and God offers and commands obedience to the Gospel for all (2 Thessalonians 1:8; Titus 2:11).
N2. Some will go to the Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20; 20:10-15; 21:8; Matthew 13:24-43; 25:31-46).
N3. People will be in Hell eternally (Matthew 18:8; 25:41,46; 3:12, Jude 7; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 20:10; 14:9-11).
Calvinists, possibly excepting Amyraldian Calvinists, teach that the first "all" in Romans 5:18 has a different scope than the second "all" in 5:18, and the first "many" in Romans 5:19 has a different scope than the second "many" in 5:19. Perhaps the core tenet of hard-core Calvinism is not definitive atonement, but rather a denial of universal atonement, that Christ did not die for everyone. Many were created with no option to escape the flames of the Second Death.
Why should some Calvinists think this way? I believe one of the two main reasons they think this way is a misunderstanding God's Sovereignty. A second reason is misdefining human depravity in such a way as to restrict God as incapable or unwilling to work in everyone.
Misunderstanding God's Sovereignty: Some Calvinists have what I believe is a correct view of God's Sovereignty. God, who can do as He pleases, can choose to delegate a portion of His sovereignty for a limited time. God can permit things to happen, such as sin, that make His heart sad. However, many Calvinists have not reached this understanding. Instead, they think the following.
#1. Many Bible verses speak of God's special love and grace for the elect, and many non-Calvinists do not pay attention to these verses. (Two key examples are Romans 9:6-23 and Romans 11:3-23)
#2. Many Bible verses speak of God's foreknown, unthwartable, plan that includes everything and everyone, even the wicked. (Examples include Ephesians 1:11; Proverbs 16:4)
#3. Because of a focused attention on the two previous truths, many (but not all) Calvinists downplay verses where God shows that people having genuine choices (Joshua 24:22-23), and that God has given people the freedom to break His heart (Jeremiah 9:1; Matthew 23:37-39, etc.)
Why do Calvinists feel this way? I believe it is for two main reasons.
Calvinist error #1 (Absolute future certainty precludes genuine choices). It is difficult for people to comprehend that God is greater than time. When people do not comprehend this, then asking them to really understand that people having genuine choices, and God knowing, with absolute certainty, what to us is called the future, is like asking seventh grade students to understand calculus; it would seem too confusing.
Many fine Christians are content to hold these two truths together, not being able to comprehend how they interact, but still believing both are true. Other people get into theological difficulties, similar to fatalism, by dropping the truth that we have choices, and making us into robots. Still other people get into theological difficulties of finite Godism by dropping the truth that God knows the future with absolute certainty.
Calvinist error #2 (no lost causes). A second reason Calvinists feel Calvinism is true is communicated well in a Calvinist book, Putting Amazing Back into Grace, by Michael Horton. He has a chapter entitled "No Lost Causes." Since God is all-powerful, all-knowing, sovereign and nothing happens except what God allows, Horton asserts that God could not do anything in vain, or nothing could happen that God, in the greater sense, does not desire.
However, Jesus lamented over the Jews' rejection of Him in Matthew 23:37-39.
The Pharisees "rejected God's purpose for themselves" in Luke 7:30.
Paul implored churchgoers not to receive God's grace in vain in 2 Corinthians 6:1.
Jesus wept over His people. Why weep, if God did not desire that they do anything differently?
Finally, it must be mentioned that not all Calvinists go with "no lost causes". The late Francis Schaeffer, a Swiss Calvinist, said in The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century: "We can glorify God, and both the Old and New Testament say that we can even make God sad. That is tremendous." (Hymns for the People of God no.364) If others can realize, like Francis Schaeffer did, exactly what God did when God made it possible for people to make Him sad, our awe at God's amazing grace will be that much more.
See When Critics Ask p.442 and When Cultists Ask p.311-312, p.214-216 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 5:19, since universalism is refuted in other verses, in what way were all who were made sinners justified?
A: Christians disagree on this. Here are some of the views.
1. Basis for potential justification for all.
2. All elect actually justified, and all sinners means elect sinners.
3. Imprecise wording to demonstrate the parallel: Christ affects His own as certainly as Adam affects his own.
 

Q: In Rom 5:19, does sin make us sinners, or does being a sinner make us sin?
A: Christians sometimes dispute this point, but the correct answer is both. A sinner is one who is separated from God. Sinning makes us sinners, but even by birth we were born in an initial state separated from God. Thus we are first born sinners by nature, and after we sin we become sinners by action.
 

Q: In Rom 5:20, how does the law increase sin?
A: Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:12 answer this, showing that God does not count sin as transgression where there is no law. In other words, God does not count unintentional sin until the person is aware it is a sin. Romans 7:7-13 goes into more detail, concluding by saying that the law was given in order that sin might be recognized as sin.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.460 says that the word "added" can be better translated "came in beside". This is the same verb used in Galatians 2:4 for false brethren who came in beside true believers.
See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.550-551 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 6:1,15, why shouldn't we sin that grace may abound?
A: This is sort of like asking the following. Since we are appreciative of a doctor operating to save our life after a car wreck, we should try to get into all the accidents we can?
As John MacArthur, Jr. said, "Why should we assume that people who live in an unbroken pattern of adultery, fornication, homosexuality, deceit, and every conceivable kind of flagrant excess are truly born again?"
 

Q: In Rom 6:5; 8; and 1 Cor 15, had believers died with Christ but were not raised with Him yet, or were they are already raised with Christ in Col 2:13 and Eph 2:5-6?
A: Positionally we are already raised to life through Christ in our spirit, and our bodies will be physically raised with Christ in the future. Besides the verses in the question mentioning this, the following are additional verses Paul taught to illustrate both sides.
Romans 6:11 says, "In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus."
Romans 8:10-11 shows both aspects clearly: "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is [present tense] alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will [future tense] also give life to your mortal bodies through this Spirit, who lives in you." (NIV)
Likewise Colossians 3:1-4 also shows both aspects. "Since, then, you have been raised [present perfect tense] with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the fight hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now [present tense] hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear [future tense] with him in glory."
Romans 6:5; 8, and 1 Corinthians do not deny that we are already raised with Christ in our spirit and positionally. Rather they affirm that it is not merely spiritual resurrection, but future physical raising too. Likewise Colossians 2:13 and Ephesians 2:5-6 do not deny a future physical resurrection; rather they affirm that it is not merely a future event, put present life in the spirit too.
(Bible quotes from the NIV)
 

Q: In Rom 6:7, since Christians are dead in Christ, and they are freed from sin, why do Christians still sin?
A: While Christians will experience sinlessness in Heaven, that is not to what this verse is referring. Romans 6:7 does not say Christians are sinless, only that they are free from being slaves to the bondage of sin.
However, as a slave might not have heard or believed the message that they are freed, sometimes Christians act as though they were still slaves to sin. If a Christian ever said, "I have to sin, I have no choice", that Christian would be speaking falsely.
All Christians agree that we are free from sin in two ways, but scholars differ over the primary intent of this particular verse.
We are free from the legal penalty of sin
"We are justified" New International Bible Commentary p.1328
"Here is the man, for example, who is sentenced to die int eh electric chair for murdering a police officer. As soon as he died, he is freed (literally 'justified') from that sin. The penalty has been paid and the case is closed." Believer's Bible Commentary p.1702. (Bold is in the original.)
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.463 says, "The next clause (Rom. 6:6b-7) in effect explains the first clause (v.6a). In his unregenerate state a believer was enslaved to sin. But his 'old man' was crucified (identified) with Christ, and that is the basis for deliverance from enslavement to sin. Anyone who has died has been freed from sin. The words 'has been freed' are a loose rendering of dedikaiotai, literally, 'has been justified or declared righteous.' The perfect tense of this ver decries a past action with a continuing effect or force. Sin no longer has the legal right to force its mastery and control on a believer, for he has died with Christ." (Bold is in the original.)
The Expositor's Greek New Testament vol.2 p.633 "Death clears men of all claims, especially (to come to the case before us) it clears us, who have died iwth Christ, of hte claim of sin, our old master, to rule over us still."
We are free from the bondage of sin
Dougles Moo discusses three views of this phrase: free from the legal penalty, dying with Christ, and free from the bondage, and says the third view is correct. "death severs the hold of sin on a person" Douglas Moo in The Wycliffe Exegical Commentary p.394 referring to commenters Godet, Michel, Kasemann).
"Set free form [sin's] shackles and power" (NIV Study Bible p.1714)
"In our relationship with Christ we are free from the bondage to sin; yet it is possible even for the Christian to 'let sin reign' (Rom 6:12)." Hard Sayings of the Bible p.553. (Italics in the original)
"in Christ, believers are potentially masters over death and sin" Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.937
"Free from the hold of sin. It's mastery is broken." The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.10 p.70.
See also The Wycliffe Exegical Commentary p.394 and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.551-553 for more extensive discussions.
 

Q: In Rom 6:17 (KJV), are we just to obey the "form" of doctrine?
A: No, but we are not merely to obey the general intent either. We are to obey completely both the general principles and specific instances commanded.
 

Q: In Rom 6:19, when Paul speaks "after the manner of men", is he giving a simplification here?
A: Yes. The NIV translates this "I put this in human terms." Paul is offering a simple anthropomorphic analogy in terms they can understand. Everyone is either a slave of a master named "Sin", or a slave of a master named "Obedience".
A simplified view of truth is still true, as long as it is recognized as a simplification and not a mirror image of the reality.
 

Q: In Rom 7:6b, how do we serve in the new way of the spirit, not the old way of the letter, since Jesus said in Lk 16:16-17 that not one jot [detail] would disappear from the Law?
A: The Law has not been changed, either by Jesus or anyone else. However, Jesus completely fulfilled the Law for us, and now we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written law. Jesus said in Luke 16:16 that the law and prophets were until John. The Old Covenant is obsolete according to Hebrews 8:13.
This differs from the Muslim concept of abrogation. Words given through Mohammed could "cancel out" previous words of Mohammed, Jesus, or any other prophet, seemingly at will. Jesus did not cancel the Law, He met it for us, and now we serve in a different way.
For example, the Old Testament prohibited eating camel meat, shrimp, and pork. Jesus, in pronouncing all food clean (Matthew 7:19), did not alter the Old Testament Law, but had us serve in a new way.
As a side note, Muslims occasionally point out that Christians do not keep the Old Testament dietary laws. Muslims do not either though, because they view Mohammed eating camel meat was OK. Christians do not criticize Muslims (or anyone else) eating camel meat either. The point is that if Muslims were to criticize Jesus or Christians for teaching that supersedes the law, any reason they give would most likely also be a criticism of Mohammed for eating camel meat and claiming to abrogate some things.
 

Q: In Rom 7:14-24, is Paul talking about a pre-Christian or post-Christian experience?
A: On a practical level, Christians have experienced this battle in Romans 7:14-24 both before and after coming to Christ.
Before coming to Christ: Some non-Christians try to struggle with their sinful nature; others have completely stopped struggling and surrendered. It is true that some cults and some behavioral psychology have gotten people to give up some evil habits, like narcotic drugs, but these are only small tactical victories when the war against our sinful nature goes on.
After coming to Christ: After becoming a Christian, we still have our old flesh nature. However, now we have Christ, who gives us motivation and hope, and the Holy Spirit inside of us, who gives us help in overcoming. The problem is not just the external acts of sin that we do. The problem is far greater. Our hearts and minds are corrupt on the inside, and God gives us not just forgiveness, but cleansing and a transformation process to make us more Christ-like. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.553-555 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.467 for more on this view.
 

Q: In Rom 8:1, was the phrase "Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but according to the Spirit" in the original manuscripts?
A: Probably not, though it is almost a moot point, because regardless, Romans 8:4b says "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." (NIV) On Roman 8:1 there are three variations.
1. "Jesus" ending the verse. (shortest reading)
Origen (225-253/254 A.D.)
The heretic Marcion according to the Orthodox writer Adamantius (c.300 A.D.)
Vaticanus [B] 325-350 A.D.
Sinaiticus (original) [Si] 340-350 A.D.
Bohairic Coptic [Boh] 3rd/4th century
Sahidic Coptic [Sah] 3rd/4rth century
Claromontanus [D] 5th/6th century
(Ethiopic) [Eth] (c.500 A.D.)
Athanasius (326-373 A.D.)
Italic (b) (fifth century)
Italic (d) (original) (fifth-sixth century)
Some Georgian (fifth century)
Diodore (before 394 A.D.)
Ambrosiaster (Latin, after 384 A.D.)
Didymus the Blind (398 A.D.)
Augustine of Hippo (388-430 A.D.)
Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.)
2. "Jesus, walking not according to the flesh."
Alexandrinus [A] (c.450 A.D.) (A member of the Byzantine family)
Victorinus of Rome (359-362 A.D.)
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) (Usually the Byzantine Lectionary agrees with John Chrysostom, but not here.)
Gothic [Goth] (493-555 A.D.)
Armenian [Arm] (apparently in the manuscript) (from 5th century)
Italic (d) (second corrector) (The original was fifth to sixth century)
Latin Vulgate [Vg] 4th and 5th centuries
The heretic Pelagius (416-418 A.D.)
Jerome (373-420 A.D.)
Syriac Peshitta (400-450 A.D.)
Speculum (Latin, fifth century)
3. "Jesus, walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Cyril of Alexandria (lemma) 444 A.D.
Byzantine Lectionary [Byz] (The Byzantine family contains from 1,761 to 2,209 separate manuscripts. These are from about 850 A.D. to 1576 A.D.)
Sinaiticus (second corrector) unknown date. The manuscript (with the original reading) was copied 340-350 A.D.
Claromontanus (second corrector) after the 6th century
Harclean Syriac (616 A.D.)
Some Georgian (5th century)
4. "Jesus" with extra space for the addition
Cambridge [F] (9th century)
Dresden [G] (9th century)
5. absent or illegible here
p46 Chester Beatty II (100-150 A.D.) is an extremely early manuscript that has much of Romans. Unfortunately two leaves are missing, including the first part of Romans 8.
Ephraemi Rescriptus [C] 5th century is not legible here.
1001 Bible Questions Answered p.18 says there is no dispute on this among textual critics, the verse originally ended with "Jesus", without the extra part. The NKJV scholars would certainly disagree with this though. The NET Bible discusses this in detail and concludes, "...Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v.4) to insulate Paul's gospel from charges that it was characterized by too much by grace. The KJV follow the longest reading found in [the Textus Receptus]."
 

Q: In Rom 8:7, should we seek a spiritual meaning in the Bible instead of the plain meaning?
A: We should be careful about assuming there is any contradiction between the plain meaning and a "spiritual meaning". There are different levels of understanding, and there are many deep truths in the Bible, but different truths are complementary, or else they are not all true.
We can assume that God intended His word to be understood by His children. When someone says they need secret or special knowledge to understand things God did not let any other Christians understand, then their "special understanding" is suspect as their own fantasy.
When a parent, premier, or general gives an order, they want it carried out the way they intended, not reinterpreted to be the opposite of what they said. Rather than asking if we should interpret the Bible "literally" vs. "spiritually" vs. "plainly" vs. "allegorically", we should simply want to interpret the Bible the way God and the human authors intended it.
See When Cultists Ask p.216-218 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:9-11,14-15, can someone be a genuine Christian and not have the Holy Spirit living inside them?
A: These verses say no. Once a Jehovah's Witness asserted to me that she did not have the Holy Spirit living inside of her, as Jehovah's Witnesses typically teach that only the 144,000 have the Holy Spirit inside of them. I showed her Romans 8:9-11, and she was almost in tears. While I would like to tell you that she then wanted to become a Christian and have the Holy Spirit inside of her, that is not what happened. Next week, she came back to my office and told me, that she guessed the Holy Spirit was inside her after all.
See also Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.349-350 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:9-11,14-15, if the Holy Spirit must be inside you to be a son of God, and speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit, then are all who do not speak in tongues not saved, as Oneness Pentecostal churches teach?
A: No. Speaking in tongues is not the only evidence of the Holy Spirit, and it is not even the primary evidence, as Galatians 5:22-24, and 1 Corinthians 13:1 show. Galatians 5:22-24 lists the fruit (not fruits) of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:29-31 shows that all do not speak in tongues, just as all do not work miracles and all are not teachers. 1 Corinthians 12:31-14:1 shows that the most central part is love, and John 14:15,21 show that an essential fruit of a Christian's life is obedience to Jesus' words.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.54 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:9-11,15, if the Holy Spirit must be inside a person or else that person does not belong to Christ, then a) do all babies who die go to Hell because the Holy Spirit is not inside them, or b) is the Holy Spirit inside all babies, or c) other?
A: The answer is other, since Scripture does not teach a) or b). Three points to consider in the answer.
1. With the exception of Jesus, and John the Baptist (Luke 1:40-44), babies do not have the Holy Spirit. We are born separated from God (Ephesians 2:3).
2. God has shown in His word that all who are saved will be saved through Christ (John 14:6; Hebrews 9:15; 10:10,14,19).
3. However, just as God was free to save people in Old Testament times prior to the Gospel and even before the Law, God can save as He wishes through Christ.
Summary: Let us be careful in trying to put restrictions on how God has to work. It is true that God will not work contradicting what He has revealed in Scripture, but we must be careful not to go beyond what is written, as 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Proverbs 30:5-6 remind us.
 

Q: In Rom 8:9, why is the Holy Spirit called the Spirit of Christ?
A: He is the Spirit of Christ for at least three reasons.
1. Within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit was sent from Father and Jesus.
2. Within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit in our life represents Jesus.
3. A deeper teaching of the Trinity shows that the members of the Trinity indwell each other, perhaps in a similar way as the Spirit indwells us.
 

Q: In Rom 8:15 and Eph 3:14-15, how is God our Father?
A: Now That's a Good Question p.13-14 mentions that a German scholar discovered that in all the Biblical and extra-Biblical Jewish writings in Italy until the 10th century A.D., not once did a Jewish person (outside of the Bible) address God in first person as Father. ...O God, you are our Father. Jesus did, and Paul encouraged us to also.
In the Old Testament, God is addressed in first person as Father in Isaiah 63:16 (twice), and Isaiah 64:8. God reminds his people that they called him "My Father" in Jeremiah 3:4. In many other places (Psalm 68:5; Isaiah 9:6; Jeremiah 3:19; 31:9; Malachi 1:6; 2:10, etc.) God is called a Father, but it is not in first person.
 

Q: In Rom 8:16,17, are all people children of God in this passage?
A: No. While the Mormon Church has taught that all humans are spirit children of God (and his many goddess wives), Romans 8:15 specifically says that we are God's children by adoption. While it is true that every person, animal, plant, and demon is a part of God's creation, Romans 8 is only referring to those who have been born again.
See Mormons Answered Verse by Verse p.82-83 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:17, can we become exalted gods, as the cult of Mormonism teaches?
A: No. This is a very ancient error, that long preceded Mormonism. Adam and Eve were tempted with this erroneous teaching in Genesis 3:4. Satan himself wanted to become like God in Isaiah 14:12-15.
As David said in Psalm 23:6, "...and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." Thus Mormon men will not have their own planets, or their own harem of goddess wives. One Mormon once said to me, "I think God made a lot of mistakes, and when I become a god, I will do better." Thus the goal of a Christian, to serve God forever in Heaven, and the goal of many Mormons, is very different.
See When Cultists Ask p.218 for more info.

Q: In Rom 8:19-22 and Rom 5:12-14, did the death of animals occur before the Fall?
A: Christians have two views on this.
Yes. These verses in Romans only refer to human death, so the Bible does not say. Fossil evidence indicates that large and small animals were eaten before the Fall of man.
No. These verses refer to death of all animals that have self-consciousness. While plants, microbes, and lower animals without "nephesh-life" (meaning self-consciousness) died prior to the Fall, higher animals did not die before the Fall. See Creation ex Nihilo June-August 1998 p.55, for more on this view.
 

Q: In Rom 8:19-22, why does God allow evil in a fallen world?
A: Both the daily newspaper and the Bible show the world contains evil as well as good. According to John 9:1-3, the man was not born blind because of his sin or the sin of his parents. In Luke 13:1-5, the murdered Galileans, and those on whom the tower of Siloam fell, may have deserved these things, but they did not deserve them any more than everyone else.
Romans 8:19-22 shows that after the Fall, God subjected creation to corruption. Corrupted man was not permitted to live in an uncorrupted creation. We have natural disasters, temporary injustice, and man's inhumanity to man. Since the Fall, 1 John 5:19 says the whole world is under the influence of the evil one. The god of this age is Satan in 2 Corinthians 4:4. Satan is the prince of this world in John 12:31; 14:30,16:11; Ephesians 6:12; and Colossians 1:13. See also the discussion on Ephesians 2:2 and Now That's a Good Question p.166-167 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:21, does freedom of a Christian include the freedom to do anything we want?
A: A cult called the Children of God, also called the Family of Love, taught that they should have sexual freedom outside of marriage.
Apparently this issue came up in New Testament times too, because Paul addressed this question in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and Romans 6:1.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11 says that we should not even eat with people who call themselves Christians and do these things.
Romans 6:1 shows that it is impossible to have this attitude and live in Christ.
One riddle I have heard is this "what is the minimum you can do and still be a Christian?" The answer is: "if you are still thinking in those terms, you have not done it yet."
See When Cultists Ask p.219-220 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:26, is the Holy Spirit our Mediator, or is Christ our Mediator as 1 Tim 2:5 says?
A: The Holy Spirit intercedes/pleads for us in prayer. He did not mediate/atone for us at the cross, or mediate for us as High Priest, as only Jesus did that. See When Critics Ask p.443 and Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible p.131 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:28, how can all things work together for good for those who are called?
A: Millions of years from now, or however time is counted in Heaven, we can look back on how God used everything in life, even the evil things, to teach us, grow us, and refine us. See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.555-557 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.474 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:28-39, my friend was reading Charles Stanley's book on Eternal Security to me and when she came to the part about God's unconditional love, she opposed that by asking where in the Bible does it say God's love is unconditional?  She is a member of the "Church of Christ" denomination and her view is that a condition to being saved involves water baptism---so therefore God's love and salvation for us depends on the condition of being baptized.  How should I have responded to her?
A: Charles Stanley has very good material on the Bible and salvation, and he is correct.
Psalm 145:17 says that God is loving towards all He has made, that includes the mercies He has shown even to the eternally lost.
However, the Bible never teaches that God is "all-loving", because it justice and wrath, not love toward Satan and demons that sends them to the Lake of fire. All people are not going to heaven, only the elect that God foreknew and predestined.
But God has a special love for some, called the elect (the heaven-bound). Though Romans 8:28-39 teaches, that nothing can separate us (those who are called) from the love of God. For the elect, how much more unconditional can it be?
Did our love "initiate" God's love towards us, or did God's love initiate our love for Him? 1 John 4:10,19 shows that God first loved us. In John 6:65 Jesus said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has drawn/enabled him." Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree on whether it is for all or some:
5-point Calvinists: The Father has only enabled some. Thus Jesus did not die for some, and they never rejected Jesus' salvation for them, because God had no desire to give them any opportunity in the first place. God has no lost causes.
Everybody else: The Father has preveniently enabled all, but some choose to throw away what was offered to them. God the Son felt such sadness over the lost cause of those in Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39).
Regardless though, many "Church of Christ" people just don't get Ephesians 2:4,8-10. Our works are 0% involved in getting us saved. We are saved by Grace THOUGH FAITH, ... NOT WORKS. Faith is specifically excluded as a work here, and water baptism is a work that is a sign of our faith, but we are saved by God's grace, not water. When you have to chose between what the Church of Christ person said and the apostle Paul, go with the apostle Paul.
 

Q: In Rom 8:29, can any whom God foreknew go to Hell?
A: No. The word foreknew here means that God foreknew they were going to Heaven. This question contains a logical falsehood. Since God is beyond time, this question is like asking, "Can anyone who went to Toledo never have been to Toledo?"
 

Q: In Rom 8:29 and Eph 1:4, is predestination just a Calvinist doctrine?
A: No. these verses show it is a Biblical doctrine for all Christians, non-Calvinist as well as Calvinist. Calvinists might have some errors on predestination, but some Calvinists have useful insights too.
God knows with certainty everything about the future, but His knowledge does not eliminate our free will or lessen our responsibility. We cannot say "God knew I was going to do it, so I had no choice, I had to do it." In Acts 2:23, Jesus Christ was handed over to the Jews by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, yet those who crucified Jesus were guilty of sin (John 19:11). Here is an example. We can read a book about George Washington crossing the Delaware River over 200 years ago. Our near-certain knowledge from the book did not force George Washington to do this. Suppose we could go back in a time machine to 400 years ago, and take the book with us. We have still done nothing that forced George Washington to do anything.
God exists outside of time (Titus 1:2), as well as inside of it, and His foreknowledge did not force us to do anything.
God's foreknowledge of us precedes His predestination / choosing in the two verses that mention both together (Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:2). Calvinists tend to place these backwards. God chooses everyone He chooses, and then He foreknows. Arminians (not Armenians) tend to say God chose before the beginning of time based on His foreknowledge. However, if God truly is outside of time, then both could be simultaneous.
The sovereignty of Almighty God does not negate our free will, though Calvinists typically say otherwise. Some things happened that "did not enter God's mind" such as the infant sacrifices in Jeremiah 32:35, and people died who should not have in Ezekiel 13:19. Some things happen that make God sad. Yet on the other hand, everything works together according to God's plan (Ephesians 1:11). How do you reconcile these two ideas? - by the concept of "delegated sovereignty". God could have total control over everything, in such a way that nothing could displease Him and we are all robots. However, God, who can do anything, apparently chose to delegate His sovereignty, for a time and within limits, such that we have the ability to choose to obey or disobey God. God apparently highly valued man, made in His image, that people could freely choose to love the Lord. God values this so highly, that He permits people to reject Him and suffer the consequences of their choice.
What is free will? Martin Luther wrote an entire book The Bondage of the Will where he said free will was a false doctrine. Luther missed the boat here, because he took things to unbiblical extremes. We are born with a will that is enslaved to sin (as Luther would agree), but we have free-agency to still cry out for help. We have free will, and a drug addict still has free will too. The drug addict might not have the power to break free of his habit, but he can stumble into a rehab center, fall on the ground and say "help me". Some people would make the distinction between a morally-neutral, unbound free-will (which is unscriptural), and what we have, calling the latter free-agency. Other people, especially Christians in the early church, use the term free-will to refer to the Biblical concept.
In summary, God predestines us, and we also have free-will, properly understood. Before time began, God's choosing who would go to heaven was not blind or capricious, but every single day of our lives was written in God's book (Psalm 139:16) as He chose us.
 

Q: Does Rom 8:29-30 teach the heresy of universalism, that all are saved?
A: No. Romans 8:29-30 says that all who were foreknown and predestined will be glorified. Absent from these verses are anything that indicates that all people are foreknown and predestined for salvation.
Here is what the false religion of Rev. Moon's Unification Church teaches in their book, the Divine Principle (fifth ed. 1977), followed later by what the Bible teaches.
Divine Principle p.190 "The ultimate purpose of God's providence of restoration is to save all mankind. Therefore, it is God's intention to abolish Hell completely, after the lapse of the period necessary for the full payment of all indemnity."
Divine Principle p.191 "When the Last Days come, even evil spirits will descend to earthly men of the same level, and by cooperating with them will take part in the fulfillment of God's will. Finally, after a due period of time, the unified purpose of creation will be attained."
Divine Principle p.200 "Though the times of their salvation may differ, all fallen men are predestined to be saved."
The Bible: The punishment of unbelievers is everlasting and eternal. (Matthew 18:8, 25:41,46, Jude 7). It is an unquenchable fire (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 3:12, Luke 3:17).
Rev 14:11 says, "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image..."
See When Critics Ask p.443-444 and Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible p.172 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:32, is the word "other" in the Greek as it is in the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation (revised 1970 C.E. p.1227)?
A: No it is not. The New World Translation adds the word "other" in italics places such as four times in Colossians 1:16-20. The italics show that it is not in the Greek. However, the word "other" is not in Romans 8:32 or Philippians 2:9 in Greek, and the Watchtower neglected to put it in italics. They also added "other" in Acts 10:36, putting it in square brackets.
See Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses p.66 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 8:39, is it possible to lose your salvation?
A: Genuine Christians disagree on this. See the discussion on Hebrews 6:4-12 and Ephesians 1:14 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:5 does this verse show that Christ is God?
A: Yes. Aland et al. records no manuscript variations on this verse, so this is strictly an English translation issue. First here are various English translations, and then some discussion taken from various commentaries.
Translations saying Christ is God in Romans 9:5:
"who is God over all, forever praised!" (NIV)
"who is over all, the eternally blessed God." (NKJV)
"who is God over all, blessed forever" (RSV)
"who is God over all, blessed forever." or "May he who is God over all be blessed forever." (NRSV margin)
Translations that do not say Christ is God in Romans 9:5:
"who is over all, God blessed forever." (KJV, NASB, NRSV)
". God who is over all be blessed for ever" (RSV margin)
"who is exalted over all, God blessed forever" (Williams)
"who is over all. God be forever praised!" Or "God who is over all be forever praised!" (NIV margin)
"May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever." (NEB)
The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 10 p.103 says "it is very awkward with NEB, to refer this to God in distinction from Christ. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.476 says "This is a clear affirmation of the deity of Messiah. Some take these words as a separate sentence (see NIV margin), but the NIV text seems preferable." Both The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 10 p.103 and The Expositor's Greek Testament volume 2 p.658-659 say that the traditional wording, which refers "God" to Christ, is preferable because
a) In Greek, "Who" can only refer to the preceding subject of the sentence, Christ.
b) Christ's human relationship to Israel is stated as to call for a similar statement on the divine side.
c) This cannot be a doxology to God the Father, since the word "blessed" is put before the person who is praised.
d) The Greek uses the definite article (the) with the preceding words "the one being over all".
e) While some translators emend the text to "wv o, hon ho" instead of "o wv, ho on" "whose is the God over all , blessed for ever", there is no textual manuscript authority for this emendation.
Conclusion: As the New Geneva Study Bible p.1762 explicitly adds in a footnote on the NKJV, "the text correctly translates Paul's words as directly ascribing deity to Christ." The NIV Study Bible p.1719 says, "One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note). See also New Age Bible Versions Refuted p.22-23 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:8-9,27 and Rom 11:13-17,26 are all Jews going to Heaven, or not?
A: No. A few have thought this based on these two passages of Romans. However Romans 8-9 makes a point that it is children of promise, not biology, that go to Heaven. Romans 9:27 emphasizes that only a remnant of biological Israel will be saved. Romans 11:13-17,26 talks of both God's "open invitation" to Jews today, and their future mass acceptance of God's invitation.
In addition, Jesus told the religious Jews in John 8:24, that if they do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will indeed die in their sins. In Matthew 23:33, Jesus asks the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees how they will ever escape being condemned to Hell. Galatians 5:2 also shows that Christ is of no value to those who trust in circumcision.
See the discussion on Jeremiah 31:37, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.566-570, Now That's a Good Question p.135-136, and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.138-139 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:13 and Mal 1:2-3, why did God hate Esau? Was that just?
A: According to R.C. Sproul in Now That's a Good Question p.570, "First of all, we are dealing with a Hebrew idiom. It is the Hebrew form of speech we call antithetical parallelism, whereby the Scriptures speak in terms of direct opposites. To understand it, we have to see that whatever God means by hating Esau it means the exact opposite of what it means to love Jacob. ... in the [O.T.] context in which this particular text occurs, when the Bible says that God loves Jacob, it means that he makes Jacob a recipient of his special grace and mercy. He gives Jacob a gift that he does not give to Esau. He gives mercy to Jacob. He withholds the same mercy from Esau because he doesn't owe Esau the mercy and he reserves the right [to withhold it]. ... The Jewish person describes the differential by using contradictory terms."
The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.160-161 gives essentially the same answer. See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.559-561 and the discussion on Malachi 1:2-3 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:18, why can't we blame God for hardening Pharaoh's heart?
A: Seven times God said He hardened Pharoah's heart. But seven times God said Pharaoh hardened his own heart. First we have to understand the concept of hardening before looking at how God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
Hardening of the heart of an ungodly person makes them more set in their ungodliness. On the other hand, God said he hardened the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and they were hardened in a good way. Ezekiel 3:8-9 says, "But I [God] will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. I will make your forehead like the hardest stone...."
In Jeremiah 1:18; 15:20 God made Jeremiah like a wall that would stand against everyone.
Thus "hardening" does not always mean evil, but hardening means making one more set in their ways, as clay is hardened.
God sending the plagues might have softened some people's hearts, but it had the effect of hardening Pharaoh's heart. How much hardening of Pharaoh's heart did God do without using external influences such as plagues? Scripture does not say. Regardless, God's work moved Pharaoh's heart in the direction Pharaoh already wanted it to go.
Here is what some early church writer taught on this.
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) "God hardens the heart of Pharaoh. He deserved, however, to be influenced to his destruction, who had already denied God, already in his pride so often rejected His ambassadors, accumulated heavy burdens on His people, and (to sum up all) as an Egyptian." Five Books Against Marcion book 2 ch.14 p.308
Origen (225-254 A.D) said in effect that as the same heat from the same sun both hardens mud and melts wax, so the working of God's spirit both hardens the rebellious and softens the repentant. Origen's de Principiis (both Greek and Latin) book 3 ch.1.11 p.311.
See also the next question for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:18, who had what responsibilities in the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh, as well as other people?
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
A. God is responsible:
A1.
Everything that happens is allowed by God. In other words, nothing happens except what God allows (James 4:15; Job 1:12; 2:6; Psalm 103:19).
A2. Everything that God decrees certainly happens. Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 55:10-11; Romans 11:29). God promised (i.e. decreed) that the Israelites were going to leave Egypt after being slaves for 400 years (Genesis 15:13-14).
A3. God created Pharaoh, and allowed him to live.
A4. God worked through history and had Pharaoh be the king of Egypt at that time.
A5. God specifically sent the plagues to Egypt.
A6. Ultimately everything, even things that "did not enter God's mind" (Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35), was, is, and will be woven together in God's plan (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28; Proverbs 16:4).
B. God is not responsible for things God allowed but did not directly cause, such as evil.
B1. Some things evoke God to have great wrath (Jeremiah 5:29; 8:19; 12:8; Ezekiel 8:6).
B2. Some things break God's heart (Jeremiah 4:19-22; 9:1; Luke 19:41-44; Matthew 23:37-39).
C. Pharaoh was responsible:
C1. Pharaoh was not coerced. In fact, for most people the plagues would have been an "encouragement" to choose what was right.
C2. Pharaoh made his own choices.
D. Both were jointly responsible:
D1.
Pharaoh also hardened his own heart, and Pharaoh's own hardening was mentioned prior to God having hardened Pharaoh's heart.
See When Critics Ask p.444-445, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.390-395, Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.287-289 and the discussion on Exodus 7:22 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19-22 and Rom 11:8,10, how can God hold us responsible for what He makes us to be?
A: Perhaps an illustration can help. Say that we were born and lived all our life aboard one ship. Suppose this ship was about to sink, and a lifeboat was available for us to get off the ship. If we stay on the ship and drown, we are responsible for our own death. We were not responsible for being born on the ship, but we were responsible for not choosing to get off the sinking ship. It would not only be improper, but also tragic and useless for a person to blame the circumstances of their birth for their own choice to refuse the offer of the lifeboat.
Thus, we had no influence or responsibility on how we were born, and the fact that we have a sinful nature. However, people are responsible for not choosing to come to God for cleansing of their sinful nature and forgiveness of their sins.
See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.561-563 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19, why is God's word calling these questions improper?
A: Two distinct reasons are given here.
Attitude: Any question is not good, if the attitude is one of talking back to God (verse 20). Rather than trying to learn God's ways, the questions seek to make God have to justify Himself.
Content: Even when asked with a reverent attitude, the questions are still not proper because they assume some falsehoods. We need to realize two truths:
1. God has the right to make us however He wished (verse 21).
2. Furthermore, as verses 21-23 show, God did not make the elect and the reprobate different, we are all born being made out of the same "clay". The difference is not in our origin, but in our destination. For many people, "the message will not be combined with faith" (Hebrews 4:2), and God will pour out His just wrath on them.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19, do people have free will?
A: Yes, by the correct definition.
No, nothing outside of God's desired and decreed will. If by free will you mean man can act totally beyond God's limits, knowledge, or ability to control, then nobody, not even Adam or Satan, have free will. However, this is rarely what is meant by free will.
Yes, we do things outside of God's desired will.
Free will often means that God has chosen to give us the ability to truly make choices, and to do things outside of what God desires. God knows all our choices, but it is we who made them. Our will is "free" in the sense that it is not coerced by God. We are not puppets or robots. However, our free will is not totally "free" because it is bound by sin. The dope addict who craves drugs has free will to completely quit cold turkey, but his will is in bondage.
Non-Calvinist Christians say we have free will, including that everyone has some responsibility and ability to respond to God. Calvinist Christians say we do not. Some Calvinists say that believers have free will, but non-believers do not. The great nineteenth preacher (and Calvinist) Charles Spurgeon said we had "free will", but it was a slave to our sinful nature, which is actually rather similar to what non-Calvinists say.
However others Calvinists say in effect that while people have "free agency", they do not have free will, not just because God chose not to give it to us, but God allegedly could not give it to us and still be sovereign.
Calvinist Loraine Boettner (p.222) says, "Furthermore, if we admit free will in the sense that the absolute determination of events is placed in the hands of man, we might as well spell it with a capital F and a capital W; for then man has become like God, - first cause, an original spring of actions -- and we have as many semi-Gods as we have free wills. Unless the sovereignty of God be given up, we cannot allow this independence to man."
Boettner is actually mixing categories here. If Boettner were to say that 'we cannot admit free will in the sense that man could do things outside of what God has allowed', then all Christians should agree with Boettner. However, if God has chosen to temporarily to have "delegated sovereignty", where God has decreed that certain things, like a person's eternal destiny, will happen one way or another based on a person's response to God working in their life, and God has not coerced the response, then Boettner is wrong, unless you read so much into Boettner's word "absolute" that the statement is a logical tautology that everyone could agree with.
A more Biblical mention of human freedom, which both non-Calvinists and many Calvinists can agree with, was in part of a talk given by R.C. Sproul in a talk in Austin on March 9, 1991. This material is from R.C. Sproul's talk in Austin on March 9, 1991.
"I don't believe as Christians we have to abandon the very important concept of human freedom and responsibility - not for a second. And it would be very painful for me to have to give up the idea of human freedom. But beloved, I could live with that. If I had to give up the idea that God is Sovereign, I have abandoned Christianity. I've abandoned hope, because I recognize now I live in a universe that is not under the authority of divine providence." So R.C. Sproul is saying that God's Sovereignty is more important to Him than human freedom, but He believes both are true. Again, Sproul is not talking about a total, absolute freedom, but he is teaching a genuine freedom.
In summary: All should agree that everyone has the responsibility to obey God, but in themselves nobody has the power to obey because of our sinful nature. Many, but not all, Reformed Christians say that God never gave the non-elect the option, choice, or ability to respond to God in any way. As one Reformed person put it, you are either a robot of God or a robot of Satan.
As a side note, some moderate Reformed theologians (Spurgeon, Packer, Bunyon, etc.) say God gives all a sincere offer of the Gospel. Others (Pink, Gill, Hoeksma) say God does not offer the Gospel to all. Others say that we can sincerely offer the Gospel to all since we do not know who the elect are, but God could not give a sincere offer.
Please see the next question for scriptural support of "free will/free agency" in the sense that even though our will is bound in sin, all have the ability to make genuine choices and to respond to God.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19, are people like robots or puppets, or has God decided to grant to everyone the ability to make genuine choices and respond to God?
A: Joshua 24:22-23 shows that either people can make choices, or that God is content to have His people be deluded in thinking they are choosing to make a Covenant with Him.
God has given people the freedom to break His heart (Jeremiah 9:1; Matthew 23:37-39, etc.). While some Calvinists say these are just anthropomorphisms, and God does not really feel this way, this opens up a whole Pandora's box. Hypothetically speaking, if all the verses in the Bible about God feeling heartbreak and disappointment are not to be taken literally, then perhaps all the verses on God's anger and wrath and anthropomorphisms are too, and God does not really have anger. Perhaps all the verses on God's love would be anthropomorphisms and God does not really have any feeling of care or concern for us either. Thus, either the verses that describe God's feelings do have meaning, or God spent a lot of ink in the Bible unnecessarily when He could have simply stated the consequences and said He was some kind of mere computer.
See the discussion on Genesis 50:19-20; Deuteronomy 1:39 and Joshua 24:21-24 for more info on people being able to make choices.
See the next answer for more extensive discussion on man's ability to make choices.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19, if people are not like robots or puppets, what does the Bible say about man's ability to make choices?
A: Pardon me for belaboring the point, but many Calvinists fail to see that God gives people a real, genuine choice about seeking Him. First two points about God, and then some points about people.
THE FATHER AND JESUS: The Father chose, called, and sent Jesus to be our Savior. This is according to Matthew 12:18; 1 Peter 2:6; Hebrews 5:4; 3:2; Luke 23:35; and Isaiah 48:15; 49:1,6.
However, the Father's choice, knowledge, and plan did not negate the fact that Christ Himself still freely chose to come and to obey, according to John 10:18; Luke 22:42; and Hebrews 10:9.
PEOPLE: All people are sinful and depraved. Apart from God's working, no one will not seek God, according to Romans 3:11, which paraphrases David's words in Psalm 14:2 and Psalm 53:2.
Yet, David himself claimed he sought God in Psalm 63:1 and Psalm 27:4,8.
Furthermore, many others with God's help, have chosen to serve the Lord.
Joshua 24:22 "You are witnesses that you have chosen to serve the Lord." said of Israel
Matthew 6:33 Seek ye first the Kingdom of God
Many seek God 1 Chronicles 16:10,11; 2 Chronicles 15:12; 30:19; Ezra 6:21; Psalm 34:10; 69:32; 70:4; Proverbs 28:5; Zechariah 8:21,22; Malachi 3:1
Set your heart on seeking God 2 Chronicles 11:16
1 Chronicles 22:19; 28:8,9; 2 Chronicles 7:14; 12:14; 14:4; 15:2; 15:13; 19:3
2 Chronicles 20:3,4; 31:21; 34:3; Hosea 3:5
Psalm 9:10 and Isaiah 45:9 are a promise not to forsake those who seek God
Psalm 22:26 They who seek the LORD will praise him.
Psalm 24:6 Such is the generation of those who seek him.
Psalm 40:16; 105:3,4; 119:2,45 all who seek you rejoice and be glad
Psalm 119:94 I have sought out your precepts
Proverbs 1:28b-29 They will look but not find, since did not fear the Lord
Proverbs 8:17 Those who seek wisdom find her
Isaiah 51:1 you who seek the LORD
Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on Him...
Jeremiah 29:13 you will seek and find when you seek with all your heart
Jeremiah 50:4 Israel and Judah will seek God
Hosea 10:12 "...for it is time to seek the Lord"
Amos 5:4,6,14; 5:14 seek the Lord and live
Moreover, with God's help, people can choose to do God's will.
John 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
Jonah 2:8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs"
Psalm 83:16 God does things in order that men may seek him
Psalm 119:30 "I have chosen the way of truth;"
Psalm 119:173 "for I have chosen thy precepts"
Isaiah 7:15 "He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right."
Isaiah 56:4 "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me..."
Proverbs 8:10, 16:16 We are commanded to choose wisdom's instruction instead of choice silver
John 5:35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light
John 7:17 "If any one chooses to do God's will, he will find out..."
Acts 20:21 "...They must turn to God in repentance and have faith"
Ephesians 1:13 You also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth.
Deuteronomy 30:19 Now [Israelites] choose life, that you and kids may live
Romans 11:32 God has bound all over to disobedience to have mercy on them all. (the word all, pantas is the same in both cases)
2 Thessalonians 2:10 perishing ones deceived because they refuse to love the truth and so be saved.
Titus 2:11 "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
1 Peter 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth..."
2 Peter 1:10 "be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure."
In contrast, people are responsible for not seeking their God.
Isaiah 9:12-13; Hosea 7:10 God angry because the people have not returned to Him or sought Him. Is God angry for what He decreed they should not do, and angry at what He did not choose to enable them to do?
Jeremiah 30:15 Because of your great guilt and many sins, God punished you
Psalm 10:4 The wicked do not seek God. (What would be the point if this verse if godly people like David did not seek God either?)
Proverbs 1:29 Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord.
SUMMARY: Since God's calling did not eliminate Jesus' choice, and the Bible says we with God's aid can choose God, thus God's calling does not eliminate our choice.
 

Q: In Rom 9:19, could it be possible that non-Christians have no free will, Christians do have free will?
A: No, but this is an interesting suggestion a Calvinist friend of mine once told me. I have not heard this from any other Calvinists though. Four points to consider in why this is incorrect.
God is sovereign, in that He knows everything that will happen, including every choice we will make. He also controls, down to the finest detail, everything that He wishes to control, and not a single atom moves except as God allows. However, God can also restrain Himself. He can choose to temporarily, and within limits "delegate His sovereignty" such that we can make choices such that we, and not God, are responsible for the consequences.
What is free will? If one defined free will as the part of us that is totally independent, that even God is incapable of controlling, this kind of free will does not exist. However, the early Christian writers wrote of free will as our ability to make choices, and that God even permits us to make choices that displease Him, and have dire consequences. However, our free will is bound by sin, just as the free will of alcoholic or drug addict is bound by their sins. They might not have the power on their own to break free from their addiction, but they can stumble into a church or rehab center and cry for help.
Many Calvinists deny that people have free will in any sense of the word; they deny that people can make choices. It is almost that we are robots. Some Calvinists deny we have free will because God is sovereign. Other Calvinists, as well as Martin Luther, deny we have free will because we are fallen and bound in sin. This question implies that Calvinists deny free will for the second reason.
Non-Calvinists can agree God is sovereign, and that man's will is bound in sin. However, neither reason makes our apparent choices a mockery, or makes man's responsibility for what he is unable to even respond to an incongruous mystery.
 

Q: In Rom 9:25,27,29 (KJV), who are O'see and Esaias?
A: O'see is Hosea, and Esaias is Isaiah.
 

Q: In Rom 9:33, what is unusual about this word for "stumble"?
A: This word does not mean to trip. Rather, its meaning is closer to falling off a cliff.
 

Q: In Rom 10:3, how could God justly punish the Israelites for ignorance?
A: There is no example in Scripture of God punishing someone for innocent ignorance. However, all ignorance is not necessarily innocent. For example, good parents do not punish an infant for ignorance, but a good teacher does penalize for ignorance a student who neglects to read the homework assignment. The Jews, as well as we today, have a "homework assignment" to know God's word.
 

Q: In Rom 10:4, how is Christ the end of the law?
A: Christ is the end of the law in a number of ways.
1. Jesus completely kept the law Himself.
2. As high priest, Christ fulfilled the law for us. Once and for all He performed the sacrifice for us (Hebrews 9:13-14).
3. The purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ. Hebrews 10:1 says the law was a shadow of what was to come.
4. Christ is the end, or the destination of the law. The Old Testament sacrifices "covered over" sin (Hebrews 9:9-10; 10:2-4) prior to Christ completely taking the sin away.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.480 says that the word "end" or "termination" (telos) is emphasized in the Greek because it is the first word of the sentence.
See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.563-566 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 10:5, do we live by keeping the Law, or does the law bring death as Rom 8:2 says?
A: An analogy might help here. Whether human law brings life or death depends on your perspective. A potential crime victim and a murderer sentenced to execution have different perspectives.
If one perfectly kept the law, that would bring life. However, breaking the law that you are able to know about, brings judgment and death.
See When Critics Ask p.445-446 and Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible p.104-106 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 10:9-10, is simply saying "Jesus is Lord" all you have to do to get to Heaven?
A: No, that is not what this verse teaches. In Acts 8:13 Simon Magus "believed", yet Peter said he was going to perish in Acts 8:18-20. The Greek word for "believe" in Acts 8:13, episteuse, is not the common word used in the Bible for "believe". The common word, pestuvo, means to trust and have a saving faith in. The word used in Acts 8:13 means intellectual assent.
 

Q: In Rom 10:11, why does this say "never be put to shame", when it is referring to Isa 28:16 which says in the Masoretic text, "never be dismayed"?
A: Romans 10:11 is like the Septuagint's "no way be ashamed", not the Masoretic text. In some many other places too, New Testament quotes are closer to the Septuagint than the Masoretic text.
The word for "dismayed" in Isaiah 28:16 in the Masoretic text is chuwah (Strong's 2363), which literally means "make haste" as the KJV has. This makes sense if you understand "shall hurry" as in hurry from battle in defeat. However, it also refers to emotions, such as being "greatly disturbed" in Job 20:2. So the Masoretic text and the Septuagint have a similar meaning here, but the Septuagint is a little more precise and easier for a non-Hebrew speaker to understand. See The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.6 p.182 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 10:11, what is the basis for saying an inanimate rock represents a person?
A: God is metaphorically a stumbling stone in Isaiah 8:14; 1 Peter 2:8. "The LORD is a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes people fall." Psalm 118:22 says, "The stone the builder rejected has become the capstone;". The Psalmist is not teaching us about buildings; this is a metaphor that fits naturally with the Messiah.
 

Q: In Rom 10:12, is it true that "the identity of the 'Lord' cannot be established with certainty from the context" as Jehovah's Witnesses have taught (Watchtower 2/1/1977 p.95)?
A: No. 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, and many other verses show it is Jesus Christ.
 

Q: In Rom 10:13, must one specifically call upon the name "Jehovah" to be saved, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach?
A: No. Rather one must call upon the real and living God. The ancient Israelites themselves did not have the word "Jehovah", as they did not have the "J" sound. So for the lack of a "J" sound, all of the saints in the Old Testament did not worship the true God? Of course, that is silly. God is concerned about our heart, and the words and actions springing from our heart, not with pronunciation.
See When Cultists Ask p.220 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 10:13, can a person accept Jesus as Savior and not as Lord?
A: No. Unfortunately some have taught that one only has to accept Jesus as Savior, and accepting Him as Lord is a second part. One variation says that Lordship is optional. A second variation, advocated by The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.190 does not say it is optional, but that submitting to Jesus as Lord is not a pre-salvation decision to ask non-Christians to do, like accepting Jesus as Savior [apparently] is. Accepting Jesus as Lord comes about gradually as a Christian walks with Him.
In Now That's a Good Question p.122-123, R.C. Sproul points out that being saved without accepting Jesus as Lord is a distortion of the true Gospel called antinomianism. Calvinists claim to see this antinomian teaching in such men as Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie.
However, Jesus refutes antinomianism in Matthew 7:21-28 and John 14:21-24. In brief, those who love Jesus will obey His teaching, and those who do not love Jesus will not obey His teaching. Also, in Colossians 2:6 Paul says, "just as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord" (NRSV). In this passage, the Bible is not speaking to those who try to accept Jesus as Savior and not as Lord.
 

Q: In Rom 10:13, if everyone who calls on the Lord will be saved, how do you know if you were sincere when you called to God to save you?
A: Let's ask a simpler question as an analogy. How do you know you intended to eat lunch yesterday?
1. Did you eat the food accidentally instead of on purpose?
2. Did you not know you wanted to eat lunch before you actually ate your lunch?
3. Was anyone forcing you to eat the food, instead of what you freely desired to do?
If you ate lunch yesterday, and the answer to the previous three questions was "no", then you intended to eat lunch.
In a similar way, calling on the Lord is not a complicated thing, like passing a test. If you called out to Jesus intentionally, you know what you were doing, you were not coerced, and freely desired to do so, then if you called out to Jesus to save you, you really called out to Jesus to save you.
 

Q: In Rom 10:14-15, can anyone go to Heaven if they never heard the Gospel?
A: -People have. As proof, Enoch, Abraham, Job, and the believers in the Old Testament followed what God revealed to them, but they did not hear what to them was the mystery of the New Testament Gospel. Remember, it is ultimately God who saves, not the Gospel, and not our response to the Gospel. See also the next question for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 10:14-15, can anyone go to Heaven if they never heard the Gospel, after Jesus rose from the dead?
A: Genuine Christians disagree on this.
Some say no. This does not necessarily mean they had no opportunity, though. If someone who never heard the Gospel would follow the truth they know and respond to the Holy Spirit working in their life, God can move Heaven and earth to bring them the truth. God providentially can cause a Christian to come and share the Gospel of Christ with them. One example of this in Acts 10:2,22,31 was a God-fearing Roman named Cornelius, who was just, prayed, and gave alms. God sent an angel to tell Cornelius to go send for Peter.
Others strongly disagree. While 2 Thessalonians 1:8 says that people who do not obey the Gospel of Jesus will be punished with everlasting destruction, Romans 4:15 and 5:12 say that sin is not counted where there is no law. While scripture does not teach anyone has a second chance after death, some see an opportunity for people to hear the Gospel and have a first chance after death, and/or during the Millennium. See the discussion on 1 Peter 3:19 (two questions) and 1 Peter 4:6 for Jesus preaching the Gospel to the dead. See the discussion on Revelation 20 for possible opportunities during the Millennium. Finally, since it is ultimately God that saves people, He could cause babies or whoever else to go to Heaven without hearing the Gospel if He wanted to do so.
Pivotal to the argument is Romans 10:14, which says that people cannot call on God without believing, they cannot believe without hearing, and they cannot hear without a preacher. If it were parallel, Romans 10:13 would say that none can be saved without calling on God; however, Romans 10:13 is not parallel. Rather, it only says that, "all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".
Romans 10:13-14 does not give any stronger a reason to say every single adult who never knew to call upon the Lord is going to Hell, than it is to say every single infant who never knew to call upon the Lord is going to Hell.
 

Q: In Rom 11:17-24, what do we know about the cultivation of olive trees?
A: Olive trees were very valuable, but they required much work. During wartime, the Israelites were not allowed to cut down olive trees in Deuteronomy 20:19-20. If the olive trees were cut down, it would decrease the land's food supply for at least 20 years. This also explains why cutting down olive trees was a disaster in Habakkuk 3:17 and Deuteronomy 28:40.
The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1366-1367 has an extensive section on olive cultivation. At the conclusion it says, "Olive trees are grown from slips that are grafted on an old trunk or a wild tree when the shoots or suckers are about three feet long. Also new shoots may spring from the roots or stump of an old parent tree (Psalm 128:3; Isaiah 11:1). There is no fruit for three to four years, and no plentiful harvest for 17 to 18 years. All this time the tree requires careful attention, the soil plowed and fertilized each spring and faithfully watered. ... properly cared for, a full-sized tree will produce a half ton of oil a year and continue until it reaches incredible age." The New International Bible Dictionary p.802 and the Encyclopedia Britannica 1972 vol.16 p.936 have photographs of olive trees that are 1,000 years old. If I were a tree, I would like to be an olive tree, sturdy, bug-resistant, and live to be a thousand years old!
 

Q: In Rom 11:17-24, why would someone graft wild olive branches into a domestic olive tree?
A: Normally one would want to do it the other way around. One would have a wild fruit tree, with its hardy characteristics, combined with domestic branches that produce fruit with pleasant characteristics. Five points to consider in the answer.
1. Paul was giving an example. He was not trying to instruct people how to grow olives, but giving an example of how the Gentiles were grafted in. As The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.726 puts it, "This deliberate inversion heightens the picturesque figure of speech conveying the eternal truth of the rejection of national Israel and composition of true Israel - all believers." See also the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.402 for a similar description.
2. Many plants are not grafted at all. One normally would only graft out a domestic branch if it were weak, insect-infested, or diseased. Paul specifically says these branches were broken off because of the unbelief in Romans 11:20.
3. The analogy of the Israelites being an olive tree was already familiar to them, in Jeremiah 11:16 and Hosea 14:6. Thus, viewing it chronologically, with the root being the ancestors of a family tree, it was the Gentiles being grafted in, not the other way around.
4. If Paul had said the Jews were the wild root, and the Gentiles the domestic branches, then Gentiles might think God grafted them in because God needed some desirable characteristics in them, versus it being all of grace. Furthermore, it was not the Gentiles that were domesticated, but the Jews.
5. If the analogy were used where the Gentiles were the wild root and the Israelites the domestic branches, that would be backwards in a greater way. The Gentiles were grafted in to God's chosen people, and certainly not the other way around.
The New Geneva Study Bible p.1787 claims that wild branches sometimes grafted in to domestic plants to give new vitality to them. Apparently, if all the branches were domestic, the olive plant would not grow as much. However, Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.152-153, the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1726, and The New International Bible Dictionary p.402 say that no horticulturist would do this, and agrees that Paul used this order to teach about the grafting out of Israel and grafting in of the Gentiles, not horticulture. Paul perhaps also implies this in Romans 11:24 saying that grafting the wild branch onto the domestic root was "contrary to nature."
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.484 says that grafting a wild branch onto a domestic root was not the norm, though it was done.
Conclusion: Paul specifically tells us why it was the Israelites that were the root in this analogy. In Romans 11:18, Paul tells them to remember that they (the Gentiles) do not support the root, but rather the root supports them.
See The Expositor's Bible Commentary volume 10 p.122 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 11:20, what were some of the barriers to the Jews being fruitful to God?
A: They had unbelief. In addition, they had
Lack of love for the lost (like Jonah)
Idolatry and other sins up until the exile (Hosea 9:10).
Found no pleasure in God's word (Jeremiah 6:10).
Caught up in the cares of this world, as in the third soil (Matthew 13:23).
Reduce God's word to only a set of rules for living
Forgot about the need to persevere (Hebrews 10:23,32-35).
Forgot the commands to train up your kids (Deuteronomy 6:4).
 

Q: In Rom 11:22, how can God be both kind and stern, without being contradictory?
A: On earth, a police officer can be kind by being helpful to a stranger who needs help. The same police office can be stern by shooting a murderer who is trying to kill someone. If a human can be both kind and stern, certainly you should not see a problem understanding that God can be the same way. As Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute says, "His holiness is not compromised, but his mercy is not restrained." See the discussion on Romans 13:10 for more on how a Christian can be a police officer.
 

Q: In Rom 11:25, what is does the "fullness of the Gentiles" mean?
A: This means that Israel was cast off as a people of God until the Gentiles who will believe have come into God's Kingdom. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.135-136 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 11:26, do all Israelites go to Heaven?
A: No according to John 8:24 and Matthew 23:33. See the discussion on Romans 9:8-9,27 for the answer.
 

Q: In Rom 11:26-27, will God still fulfill some promises in the future for the biological descendants of Israel?
A: This is one of the key differences between Christians who are covenant theologians and Christians who are dispensationalists.
Covenant Theologians say no. All future promises will be fulfilled not to physical Israel but to spiritual Israel, that is the church, comprised of all true believers of all nationalities.
Dispensationalists say yes. Many promises will be fulfilled to spiritual Israel, but physical Israel will still inherit the land of Palestine forever. The 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 are from the tribes of Israel. See When Critics Ask p.446-447 for more info on the Dispensationalist perspective.
 

Q: In Rom 11:29 (KJV), what does "calling without repentance" mean?
A: It means an irrevocable calling, or a certain and irreversible calling.
 

Q: In Rom 11:32, how has God bound all people over to disobedience?
A: God did not simply dismiss his standard of justice nor lower his standard of perfection for Heaven. Rather, God had mercy on their disobedience through Jesus, blood on the cross.
This may also relate to the fact that God made at least five kinds of beings:
Non-moral: animals
Sinless and remain sinless: angels of various orders
Sinless to Fallen: demons
Fallen to Sinless: elect people
Fallen and remain fallen reprobate people
Romans 11:32 shows that all people, excluding Adam, Eve, and Jesus, are in the last two categories.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.570-572 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 12:1, how are we to be sacrificed for God?
A: Romans 12:1 does not say we are to be a dead or burned sacrifice, but rather a living sacrifice. Of course, a living sacrifice can have a tendency to want to crawl down off the altar, and we should not do that.
 

Q: In Rom 12:6-8, why is the list of gifts different from the lists in 1 Cor 12:7-11, 1 Cor 13:8, and Eph 4:7-13?
A: It is good that the gifts listed are different. If they were not, then someone might think the list was the comprehensive list of gifts, and there were not any gifts that were not on the list. These lists are given as examples of categories of gifts. God is free to give additional gifts, and even additional categories of gifts as He pleases and as the church has a need.
See Today's Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.361-365 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 12:9 (KJV), what does "love without dissimulation" mean?
A: This is also translated "love must be sincere". Dissimulation meant in a way that was misleading or had ulterior motives. When people love others only because of what others can do for them, that is not a sincere love. Williams translates this, "Your love must be true."
 

Q: In Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 5:10, Mt 25:35-45, what does the Bible say about practicing hospitality?
A: First what the Bible commands in general and then qualifications on that command.
Positive Command: Romans 12:13 and 1 Timothy 5:10 tell us to practice hospitality; this is for Christians and non-Christians alike. In Matthew 25:35-45, Jesus said if you gave food, drink, hospitality, clothing, or care of the poor, strangers, sick, or prisoners, it was as if you did it for him. Hebrews 13:2 also says some have entertained angels unawares.
Negative Examples: Job 31:32 mentions not showing hospitality to a stranger as a sin. Among other sins, Sodom and Gomorrah did not show hospitality in Ezekiel 16:49.
Qualification: 2 John 9-11 says that people who are heretics should not be given hospitality. Also, 1 Corinthians 4:11-13 says we are not to associate with any who call themselves a brother but who lives an ungodly life.
The early Church writer Clement of Rome (96/98 A.D.) must have thought hospitality was important because he mentions four examples.
 

Q: In Rom 12:20 and Ps 25:21-22, what does it means to heap burning coals on someone's head?
A: Christians from Chrysostom to modern times unanimously interpret this as saying Christians should not get revenge. However, there are four views as to what the burning coals mean.
Showing the enemy's unreasonableness: John Chrysostom in his Epistle to the Romans homily 22 vol.11 p.509 says that a Christian's kindness and gentle laughing at insults shows our lack of animosity and the foolishness and needlessness of the enemy's charges.
Assisting with Penitence: Being nice to your enemies will make them feel shameful and convict them when they realize they are acting evil toward you and you are acting loving toward them. The New Bible Dictionary (Eerdmans' 1962 p.242) and the Geneva Study Bible mentions that coals in Romans 12:20 is a metaphor for shame. The NIV Study Bible p.1726 says that this might help bring about the person's repentance.
Punishment: Psalm 140:10 says that burning coals falling on a person was a punishment for the wicked. Being kind to them, would both make them feel embarrassed, and leave the vengeance to God. The NIV Study Bible p.981-982 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.961 mention this view.
Assisting with Purification: Heap burning coals would be like God had a coal put in Isaiah's mouth in Isaiah 6:5-7. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.572-574 for more info on this interpretation and how the author, Brauch, feels that burning coals has a positive meaning, not a negative one. Brauch also mentions an ancient Egyptian custom in which a person who had done wrong would show his penitence by carrying a dish of burning coals on his head. The NIV Study Bible p.981-982 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.961 also mention this. However, this could show shame, not that our kindness somehow purifies his sin.
General Assistance: A fourth view some have is that in ancient times when someone's fire went out, they would travel around the village with a basket on their head, and the neighbors would each put one coal in so that they would have enough coals for a fire. This is mentioned in The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.961. However, I have seen no documentation for people ever carrying a pan on their heads for this purpose in ancient times. It would seem a single coal would go out before the other coals were added.
 

Q: In Rom 13:1-6 and 1 Pet 2:13-14, how are we to obey governments?
A: We are to obey and honor their laws in spirit and letter. We are both not to do evil, and not to have the appearance of evil (2 Corinthians 8:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 5:22). However, a nation's laws supersede the laws of a province, God's laws supersede the laws of nations. Any of a country's laws that contradict God's law we are not to obey.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.490 and Hard Sayings of the Bible p.574-576 for more info.
 

Q: In Romans 13:1-2 God tells us: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." Does that mean governments like those under Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. were appointed by God and the people were not meant to resist them?  I find this very hard to believe. If you could explain this to me I'd be very grateful.
A: Let me first give you a brief answer, and then a long answer.
Briefly, No, we are never to obey any commands that are against God's commands (such as don't murder, etc.). Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. were evil men, that God allowed to reign. But remember the Bible mentions the "prince" of this world, and that is Satan. But even though those men are evil, we are to respect government authority, to the extent that it is not contrary to God's authority.
Early Christians wrestled with this, because the Roman government ordered them, under threat of torture and death, to make sacrifices to the Emperor and worship the Emperor or Roman gods. They understood the they were to obey all Roman laws except when they conflicted with the higher law, God's law. The way they phrased this is that there were "legal" laws, and "illegal" laws, which in Greek is sort of punning in the face of death. So even though they were supposed to disobey laws saying to sacrifice to other gods, they knew they still had to obey the other laws that were in conformance, or at least not against God's law. 
Let's pretend we lived in the 1940's in Nazi Germany. Hitler was certainly an evil man, and any commands to turn Jews into the government we should disobey. But we would still need to obey the traffic laws, and (unfortunately) pay income taxes.
It gets trickier if we were drafted to serve in the army. I had read that it was rather obvious to the average German that many Jews were going into the camps, none were coming out, and the air around the camps stank of human flesh. If we had to join the army, we would have to see that we were in the evil army, and either surrender to the allies at the first chance, or even better, become a prison guard, and let Jews escape. There was a Nazi officer named Oskar Schindler, who was the only Nazi soldier who is honored in Israel. He knew first hand what was happening in concentration camps, and he worked to save as many Jews as he could. There is a famous movie about him called Schindler's List. What is not so well known is that there was a second Nazi party-member, who worked in Mainland China, named John Rabe who similarly did all he could to save the lives of Chinese in Nanjing and other places.
 

Q: In Rom 13:1-2,4, the skeptic Bart Ehrman asks if Christians were supposed to obey governing [Roman] authorities, or will the Roman authorities be wicked and evil in Revelation 17:18 (Jesus, Interrupted p.97-98)
A: I asked my 14-year old daughter this, and she could see the answer clearly: both are true. Paul lived under one of the most despicably evil Roman emperors of all time: Nero. Paul would know in his own time how wicked the Roman Emperor could be; he would not have to wait until Revelation was written (almost 50 years after his martyrdom) to know that governing authorities could be very evil. Yet, Paul still taught us to obey the governing authorities. Early Christians did obey the governing authorities, except when their commands went against the higher commands of God.
 

Q: In Rom 13:7, how were pagan and corrupt Roman government officials God's ministers?
A: The Roman government by Paul's time was extremely corrupt. Men amassed huge fortunes just by being governors of provinces such as Sicily. These people were not God's ministers either by their conscious choice or by virtue of the morals. Rather, they were God's ministers in the one (and only) sense that since they were the actual government, and Christians were to obey them as long as their laws did not contradict God's. In general, the early Christians were very law-abiding, except that they refused to worship the Emperor as well as worship Christ. For this reason, tens of thousands of them were martyred.
 

Q: In Rom 13:8, why do Christians have debt?
A: Romans 13:8 does not say to never have debt, but rather to let no debt remain outstanding, except for love for another. In other words, the first part of this verse is saying we can have debt, but we should pay our debts. Sometimes strange and unusual laws can free up someone from the legal obligations to pay a valid debt. However, regardless of strange human laws, we still have to obey God.
 

Q: In Rom 13:9-10, does love your neighbor as yourself really sum up all the Law? What about loving God too, as Mark 12:29-30 says?
A: Paul mentioned four of the Ten Commandments here. Actually the last five and a half can be generalized as "love your neighbor as yourself". One can generalize the first four and a half commandments as "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength." So one point is that "love your neighbor as yourself" does generalize all laws concerning relationships with other people.
A second point is that it is difficult to have the strength to really love your neighbor spiritually, emotionally, financially, and every other way, if you do not first love God.
 

Q: In Rom 13:10, since we should have no ill will toward our neighbors, can a Christian be a policeman and arrest people?
A: Yes. For the love of other people, for the sake of society, and for enforcing laws against wrong-doers, a Christian policeman can arrest people, using force as necessary. However, they should do so without hatred, malice, anger, or ill-will against the wrongdoer. A good policeman should never have the attitude that he himself is above the law, or that others should treat him special.
For a good example of what it is like to be a Christian policeman patrolling the "heroin capital of Australia", see Creation ex Nihilo vol.3 no.3 June-August 1998, p.14-16.
 

Q: In Rom 13:11-14, what is the significance of this passage?
A: People can choose to live however they wish. However, Romans 14:12 says they will have to give an account of how they lived. Since we do not know when the end of life on earth will come for us, Romans 13:11-12 mentions the urgency of awakening to the realities at hand.
As a side note, Augustine of Hippo (388-430 A.D.) said he was brought to his knees by Romans 13:11-14. Prior to becoming a Christian, Augustine was living with his girlfriend by whom he had a son.
 

Q: In Rom 13:13 (KJV), what do these two King James Version words mean?
A: These King James Version words refer to wild, Roman-style parties.
 

Q: In Rom 14:2,14,17,20-21, as Catholic and Orthodox Christians refrain from non-fish meat during Lent, should all Christians do this to avoid stumbling weaker brethren? Likewise, as some Christians believe in never drinking alcohol, should all Christians refrain?
A: Here is a summary of what you should do.
1. Practice what you believe is right, but do not look down on those who practice differently.
2. Do not let what you believe be spoken of as wrong, if it is not unbiblical. (See Colossians 2:16-20)
3. If a person reminds you of this issue, mention that it is fine to do, but tell them if that is the way they believe, you will not do it in their presence.
It is important to do 2 and 3 together. If you simply refrain from doing it at that time, they might get the impression that you agree not to do it again. If they find out you did it again when they were not around, it would have the appearance of hypocrisy. So, refrain from doing it around them, but make it clear you still believe it is right and you are not implying that you will refrain from doing it altogether.
 

Q: In Rom 14:5, is it now OK to work on Saturday or Sunday, or not?
A: Genuine Christians, both back then and now, disagree. See the discussion on Exodus 20:8 for the answer. Paul said to collect money on the first day of the week in 1 Corinthians 16:2. Early Christians worshipped on Sunday, according to the
Following:
Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians ch.9 p.62 (106-117 A.D.) "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death"
Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians ch.5 p.51 (-107/116 A.D.) "He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself."
Didache (=Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) (c.125 A.D.) ch.14 p.381 (Implied) "But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure."
Epistle of Barnabas ch.10 p.143 (100-150 A.D.) (implied) says that Christians keep the "eighth day" [i.e. Sunday] because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. He later ascended into the heavens.
Justin Martyr (c.150 A.D.) "But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you [Emperor Adrian] also for your consideration." First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.67 p.188
Dionysius of Corinth (170 A.D.) (partial) "We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement." fragment 2 vol.8 p.765
Irenaeus (180-188 A.D.) (second-hand) is mentioned in the eponymous work Questions and Responses to Orthodoxy "This [custom], of not bending the knee upon Sunday, is a symbol of the resurrection, through which we have been set free, by the grace of Christ, from sins, and from death, which has been put to death under Him. Now this custom took its rise from apostolic times, as the blessed Irenaeus, the martyr and bishop of Lyons, declares in his treatise On Easter, in which he makes mention of Pentecost also; upon which [feast] we do not bend the knee, because it is of equal significance with the Lord's day, for the reason already alleged concerning it." (The footnote says that Sunday here probably refers to Easter Sunday.) ANF vol.1 Fragments of Irenaeus fragment 7 p.569-570.
Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) (partial, the Lord's Day is the eighth day) "And the Lord's day Plato prophetically speaks of in the tenth book of the Republic, in these words: 'And when seven days have passed to each of them in the meadow, on the eighth they are to set out and arrive in four days.'" Stromata book 5 ch.14 p.466
Tertullian (200-220/240 A.D.) says that while Jewish feasts were the Sabbath and purification, Christians made Sunday their day of rest/festivity. Ad Nationes book 2 ch.13 p.123
Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) "But if it be clear from the Holy Scriptures that God rained manna from heaven on the Lord's Day, and rained none on the Sabbath Day, let the Jews understand that from that time our Lord's Day was set above the true Sabbath." Homilies on Exodus (translated by Rufinus, who translated very freely) Homily 7 ch.5 p.308
Cyprian of Carthage (c.253-258 A.D.) (partial) "For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us." Letters of Cyprian Letter 58 ch.4 p.354
Archelaus (262-278 A.D.) (partial) discusses how Christ superseded the Sabbath as Lord of the Sabbath. The Disputation with Manes ch.42 p.216
Anatolius of Alexandria (270-280 A.D.) (partial) "the Lord's resurrection, which took place on the Lord's day, will lead us to celebrate it on the same principle; yet this should be done so as that the beginning of Easter..." Paschal Canon ch.16 vol.6 p.151
Victorinus of Petau (martyred 304 A.D.) "On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God, or a fast. On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that "His soul hateth; " which Sabbath He in His body abolished, although, nevertheless, He had formerly Himself commanded Moses that circumcision should not pass over the eighth day, which day very frequently happens on the Sabbath, as we read written in the Gospel." On the Creation of the World p.341-342
Council of Elvira (306-307 A.D.) (21 undisputed canons) "If anyone who lives in the city does not attend church services for three Sundays, let that person be expelled for a brief time in order to make the reproach public." Canon 21.
Peter of Alexandria (306,285-311 A.D.) discusses the fourth day and that Jesus suffered on the sixth day [Friday] for us. Then he says, "But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it He rose again, on which day we have received it for a custom not even to bow the knee. The Canonical Epistle Canon 15 p.278
Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) (partial mentions the eight day) "His own Son to reveal to the prophets His own future appearance in the world by the flesh, in which the joy and knowledge of the spiritual eighth day shall be proclaimed, ... before the Church was espoused to the Word, received the divine seed, and foretold the circumcision of the spiritual eight day."
Among heretics and spurious books
The heretic Bardaisan/Bardesan (154-224-232 A.D.) says that we [Christians] meet on the first day of the week. The Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries p.733
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c.375/390 A.D.) "But keep the Sabbath and the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection." book 7 section 2.23 p.469
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (c.375/390 A.D.) "but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praised to God that made the universe by Jesus, ..." book 2 ch.8.59 p.423
Deviations from this were mentioned by Justin Martyr (wrote about c.138-165 A.D.) (Dialogue with Trypho ch.47), calls Sabbath-keepers "weaker brethren", and Eusebius of Caesarea (324 A.D.) mentions Ebionite heretics as keeping the Sabbath.
 

Q: In Rom 14:5, was Paul referring to the Sabbath here?
A: It is applicable to both the Sabbath and Jewish holy days. Christians have two viewpoints. Paul explicitly specified neither Old Testament festival or Sabbath. Paul used the very generic phrase "special days" to cover both.
In contrast to this, the editors of the Calvinist New Geneva Study Bible p.1791 thinks Paul was only referring to Jewish holy days. It says, "If the Sabbath were in view it would have been more natural to say, 'One man considers the Sabbath above the other days.'"
It is a moot point to add restrictions to the phrasing of Romans 14:5, because elsewhere (Colossians 2:16 NKJV) Paul specifically says we are not to judge others "regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths". Thus, Paul covered believers having different views and not judging others for both festivals and Sabbaths.
 

Q: In Rom 14:5, when Paul had the perfect opportunity to settle the question on the Sabbath, why did he decline to do so?
A: Because the point Paul was trying to make was more important than our view on the Sabbath. While Paul actually did give the answer obliquely on food (Romans 14:14,17,20), the main point of this passage is not food or the Sabbath, but the following:
1. Obedient Christians will differ on non-essential issues, and that is OK. We must not look down on those with other views. (Romans 14:1-4,10-13)
2. Do not let what you think of as good to be spoken of as evil. (Romans 14:16-17)
3. Do not be a stumbling block to others. If you know it is OK, it could still be a sin for weaker brothers, who do not do it out of faith. (Romans 14:13-15,20-21,23)
See also the discussion on 1 Corinthians 8:9-13 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 14:15, how can just "eating" destroy a fellow Christian?
A: The food does not physically harm a fellow believer, but Paul is speaking of a way the action of eating can destroy a fellow Christian's faith. If a Christian thinks it is wrong to eat something, and a second Christian tempts the first Christian to go against their conscience, then it can hurt the faith of the first Christian. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.576-578 and the Believer's Bible Commentary p.1736-1737 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 15:24,28, did Paul ever travel to Spain?
A: Paul wrote Romans on the way to Jerusalem (Romans 15:25), so if he did, it had to be after Romans was written. Here is the evidence he did.
a) Paul intended to go there (Romans 15:24,28)
b) Eusebius suggested he went (History 2:22:2-3)
c) Paul did according to 1 Clement ch.5 p.6, the Muratorian Canon ch.2 lines 34-39 p.603, and the spurious Acts of Peter (4th century?) ch.1-3.
See The NIV Study Bible note under 1 Timothy 2:1 for more info on Paul's journeys.
 

Q: In Rom 15:33, how come the Lord is a God of peace, since Ex 15:3 says God is a warrior?
A: The Bible never says God is only a peacemaker, or that God is peace. Instead, the Bible mentions God as having wrath as well as being a God of peace. In a similar way as a warrior can command and protect peace of others, God can command peace.
See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.209 for more info.
 

Q: In Rom 16, does this long list of people in a city Paul had not visited indicate this letter was not really written to the Romans (Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.1097) or that Rom 16 was not really a part of Romans (Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.1093)?
A: No. Of the more than 28 people Paul mentioned, one was from Asia, three were Paul's relatives, and some were co-workers Paul knew from Corinth and other places. In addition, nothing says that Paul had met every one of these individuals in person; some may have been workers Paul heard of second-hand and wanted to commend.
 

Q: In Rom 16:7, were Andronicus and Junia apostles, since they were of note among the apostles?
A: No. This means Andronicus and Junia were especially noticed by the apostles. As a side note, they were never mentioned at all by church writers through 325 A.D.
 

Q: In Rom 16:13, is this Rufus the same Rufus in Mark 15:21, who was the son of Simon of Cyrene who carried Jesus' cross? (Asimov's Guide to the Bible p.1098 asked this.)
A: It could be, but not necessarily. Rufus was a common name. The New Geneva Study Bible mentions this as a possibility.
 

Q: In Rom 16:15, how was Jesus Christ kept secret until He came, since so many Old Testament prophecies refer to the Messiah?
A: Just as a person can mention a secret as a mystery without explaining it, the Old Testament frequently mentions the mystery of the coming Messiah, without explaining the Incarnation of Jesus.
 

Q: In Rom 16:17-18 (KJV), how do divisive people serve their own belly?
A: The King James Version gave a precise and literal translation of an idiom whose meaning was "serve their own appetites". In this case it is their appetite for greed and self-importance.
 

Q: In Rom 16:23, what archaeological evidence is there for Erastus?
A: In Romans 16:23, Paul greets Erastus, the city treasurer of the city Paul was writing from (Corinth). This may be the same Erastus in 2 Timothy 4:20 and Acts 19:22.
In 1929, in excavating Corinth, the following inscription was found: "Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense."
See The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable? (IV Press 1943) by F.F. Bruce p.95 for more info. See the Rose Book of Charts, Maps & Time Lines p.117 for a photograph.
 

Q: In Rom, when was the book of Romans written?
A: Probably during the winter of 56/57 A.D. See The New Testament Documents : Are They Reliable? (IV Press 1943) by F.F. Bruce p.95 for more info.
 

Q: How do we know that Rom was really written by Paul?
A: A number of ways:
The Book of Romans itself says so, and the early church never questioned this.
The Muratorian Canon (170-210 A.D.) ch.3 (ANF vol.5) p.603 mentions that Paul wrote to seven churches in his epistles, Corinthians (2 letters), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians (2 letters), Romans. Paul wrote Philemon, Titus, two letters to Timothy.
Irenaeus
(182-188 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:1-4 as by Paul writing to the Romans. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.3 p.441. Also Romans 8:36 as by Paul in his letter address to the Romans in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 2 ch.22.2 p.390
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) "therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: 'For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing,' showing that the 'good thing' of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: 'Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?' [Romans 7:24] Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying, ] 'The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord.'" Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.20.3 p.450
Tertullian
(207/208 A.D.) mentions Paul being the author of Galatians, Corinthians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Romans in Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.5 p.350.
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) "But how Paul, ... As also in his Epistle to the Romans: 'And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, being sure that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed.' [Romans 5:3-5a] And again: 'And if children, then heirs, heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.' And therefore he afterward says: 'Who shall separate us from the love of God? Shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is written: For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we have been counted as sheep for the slaughter), Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through Him who loved us. For we are persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor power, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'" [Romans 8:17-39] Scorpiace ch.13 p.646
Hippolytus
(222-235/6 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:17 as by Paul Treatise on Christ and Antichrist ch.64 p.218. See also Against the Heresy of One Noetus ch.4 p.225
Origen
(225-253/254 A.D.) "But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that 'although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.' And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words: 'For God showed it unto them;' dimly alluding, I think, to those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding, when he adds, 'For the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are Clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.'" [Romans 1:19-21a] Origen Against Celsus book 3 ch.47 p.483
Novatian
(250-257A.D.) mentions Romans 1:20 as by the apostle Paul. Treatise Concerning the Trinity ch.3 p.614
Cyprian of Carthage
(c.246-258 A.D.) mentions the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans" in Treatises of Cyprian - Testimonies ch.45 p.546.
At the Seventh Council of Carthage (258 A.D.) (partial) Paulus of Obba quotes half of two verses, Romans 3:3b-4a, as by the apostle on p.570
Adamantius
(c.300 A.D.) Adamantius quotes Romans 7:12 as by Paul. Dialogue on the True Faith second part ch.20 p.105. See also ibid first part ch.21 p.64
Victorinus of Petau
(martyred 304 A.D.) mentions the Old and New Testaments in his Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John p.345 He listed the letters of Paul as Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy and quotes 1 Timothy 3:15 in ch.16 p.345 He goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 15:53 on p.346
Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) quotes Romans 8:19-21 as "Paul clearly testifies". Discourse on the Resurrection part 1 ch.8 p.365
 

Q: In Rom, how do we know that Scripture today is a reliable preservation of what was originally written?
A: There are at least three good reasons.
1. God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; Isaiah 59:21; Isaiah 40:6-8; 1 Peter 1:24-25; and Matthew 24:35.
2. Evidence of the early church. Here are pre-Nicene writers who referred to verses in Romans.
Clement of Rome
(97/98 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:32b 1 Clement ch.34 vol.1 p.14; vol.9 p.239
Polycarp
(c.150 A.D.) Romans 14:10b,12 1 1/2 quote Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians ch.6 p.34
(The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1 p.591 has four references in Justin Martyr's works in the appendix, but in my opinion these are not clear enough to count as references.)
Muratorian canon (170-210 A.D.) ANF vol.5 p.603 mentions that Paul wrote to seven churches in his epistles, Corinthians (2 letters), Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians (2 letters), Romans. Paul wrote Philemon, Titus, two letters to Timothy.
Theophilus of Antioch (wrote 168-181/188 A.D.) quotes Romans 2:7 and 2:8,9 in Theophilus to Autolycus book 1 ch.14 p.93. He quotes part of Romans 13:7,8 in Theophilus to Autolycus book 3 ch.14 p.115. These are the only places where he refers to Romans.
Christians of Vienna and Lugdunum (177 A.D.) p.778 quotes 3/4 of Romans 8:18
Irenaeus (182-188 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:1-4 as by Paul writing to the Romans. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.16.3 p.441. He also refers to Romans 8:36 as by Paul in his letter address to the Romans in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 2 ch.22.2 p.390
Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs (180-202 A.D.) p.285 (partial, Paul) "What are the things in your chest? Speratus said, Books and epistles of Paul, a just man."
Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) quotes Romans 16:19 by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans. The Instructor book 1 ch.5 p.214
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) says "the Apostle admonishes the Romans" and quotes Romans 13:1 in Scorpiace ch.14 p.647.
Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:17 as by Paul Treatise on Christ and Antichrist ch.64 p.218
Commodianus (c.240 A.D.) (partial) speaks of Solomon and Paul the apostle. Instructions of Commodianus ch.31 p.209
Theodotus the probable Montanist (ca.240 A.D.) alludes to Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6 in his letter ch.19 p.45
Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) quotes Romans 9:16 as "in Paul" [both Latin and Greek versions] Origen Against Celsus book 3 ch.1 p.307
Novatian (257 A.D.) refers to Romans 1:20 as by the Apostle Paul. Treatise on the Trinity ch.3 p.614
Treatise Against Novatian (254-256 A.D.) ch.12 p.661 quotes Romans 14:4 as by the apostle. It quotes parts or Romans 2:11 in ch.16 p.662.
Cyprian (c.246-258 A.D..) quotes from "the epistle of Paul to the Romans" in Treatise 12 the third book 17 among other places.
Moyses et al. to Cyprian (250-251 A.D.) quotes Romans 8:35 as by the apostle. Letters of Cyprian Letter 25 ch.4 p.303
At the Seventh Council of Carthage (258 A.D.) on p.570 Paulus of Obba quotes half of two verses, Romans 3:3b-4a, as by the apostle.
Dionysius of Alexandria (c.246-265 A.D.) refers to 1/3 of Romans 14:23 as by the apostle. Epistle to the Bishop Basilides canon 4 p.96.
Archelaus
(262-278 A.D.) quotes Romans 5:14 as scripture in disputing with Manes. Disputation with Manes ch.29 p.202
Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) refers to Romans 2:16. He also quotes Romans 6:13 as by the Apostle, and quotes Romans 7:12 as by Paul
Victorinus bishop of Petau in Austria (martyred 304 A.D.) Mentions the Old and New Testaments in his Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John p.345 He listed the letters of Paul as Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy and quotes 1 Timothy 3:15 in ch.16 p.345 He goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 15:53 on p.346
Peter of Alexandria (306,285-311) Romans 10:8-10. The Canonical Epistle canon 5 p.271. He quotes half of Romans 2:11 in The Canonical Epistle canon 7 p.272/
Methodius (270-311/312 A.D.) quotes Romans 8:19-21 as "Paul clearly testifies". Discourse on the Resurrection part 1 ch.8 p.365
Athanasius (c.318 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:26 "as Paul said, the holy minister of Christ" Against the Heathen ch.26 p.17
Lactantius (c.303-c.325 A.D.) alludes to Romans 1:22 in The Divine Institutes book 2 ch.3 p.44. He alludes to Romans 1:21-23 in The Divine Institutes book 4 ch.1 p.101
Alexander of Alexandria (313-326 A.D.) quotes Romans 8:32 as by St. Paul. Epistles on the Arian Heresy Epistle 1 ch.8 p.294
From Nicea to Ephesus (325 A.D.-431 A.D.)
Eusebius of Caesarea
(318-339/340)
Aphrahat/Aphraates (337-345 A.D.) refers to Romans as scripture. Select Demonstrations
Philo of Carpasia (4th century) refers to Romans 10:15
Serapion (after 362 A.D.)
Marius' reply to the Arian Candidus (359-362 A.D.)
Victorinus of Rome (after 363 A.D.)
Athanasius (367 A.D.) lists the books of the New Testament in Festal Letter 39 p.552
Hilary of Poitiers (355-367/368 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:2-4 as by Paul. On the Trinity book 7 ch.25 p.129
Hilary of Poitiers (355-367/368 A.D.) quotes Romans 6:10-11 "again to the Romans he [the blessed Apostle] writes" On the Trinity book 9 ch.13 p.159
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (350-370 A.D. or 5th century) mentions Paul's Letter to the Romans as part of the New Testament. It quotes all of Romans 1:1.
Cheltenham Canon (=Mommsen Catalogue) (ca.360-370 A.D.)
Titus of Bostra (before 378 A.D.)
Ephraim the Syrian (350-378 A.D.)
Basil of Cappadocia (357-378/379 A.D.) quotes Romans 11:36 as by Paul. On the Spirit ch.5 p.5
Synod of Laodicea in Phrygia (343-381, 363 A.D.)
Ambrosiaster (after 384 A.D.)
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) mentions Romans 8:14 as by Paul written to the Romans Lecture 14.29 p.102
Apollinaris of Laodicea (c.390 A.D.)
Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.) quotes Romans 1:24-25 as by "Paul, who, filled with the Spirit of God." On the Christian Faith book 1 ch.16.101 p.218.
Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.) quotes Romans 8:32 as Scripture. On the Christian Faith book 1 ch.17.109 p.219.
Gregory Nazianzen (330-391 A.D.)
Pacian of Barcelona (342-379/392 A.D.) quotes Romans 2:4-5 as by the Apostle Paul. On Penitents ch.11.2 p.84
Gregory of Elvira (after 392 A.D.) refers to Romans 7:22 and other passages
Amphilochius (-394/397 A.D.) in Iambi ad Seleucum
Gregory of Nyssa (c.356-397 A.D.) says Romans 1:1 is by Paul in Against Eunomius book 2 ch.4 p.105 and the Epistle to the Romans in Against Eunomius book 2 ch.9 p.117
Didymus the Blind (398 A.D.)
Diodore (398 A.D.)
The schismatic Lucifer of Cagliari, Sardinia (361-c.399 A.D.)
Syriac Book of Steps (Liber Graduum) (350-400 A.D.)
Syrian Catalogue of St. Catherine's (ca.400 A.D.)
Macarius/Symeon (4th/5th century)
Asterius of Emesa (c.400 A.D.)
Macarius/Symeon (4th/5th century)
Maximinus of Turin (4th/5th century)
Epiphanius of Salamis (360-403 A.D.)
Pope Innocent I of Rome (ca.405 A.D.)
Rufinus (374-406 A.D.)
Gaudentius (after 406 A.D.) refers to Roman 8:35 and other verses
Chromatius (died 407 A.D.)
John Chrysostom (392-407 A.D.) wrote down 32 sermons on Romans.
Severian (after 408 A.D.)
Niceta of Remesianus (361-c.415 A.D)
Rufinus (374-406 A.D.) translating Origen (225-253/254 A.D.) quotes of Romans 1:1-4 in Paul's Epistle to the Romans. de Principiis book 2 ch.4.2 p.276
Orosius/Hosius of Braga (414-418 A.D.)
Council of Carthage (393-419 A.D.)
Jerome (317-420 A.D.) quotes Romans 7:6 as "says the apostle". Letters of Jerome Letter 69 ch.7 p.146
Augustine of Hippo (388-430 A.D.) mentions apostle writing Romans in The City of God book 20 ch.1 p.421
The semi-Pelagian John Cassian (419-430 A.D.) quotes Romans 14:10,11 as "the apostle... writing to the Romans" in The Seven Books of John Cassian book 3 ch.7 p.566
Nilus (c.430 A.D.) refers to Romans 7:12.
Marcus of Eremita (after 430 A.D.)
Council of Ephesus (June-Sept. 431 A.D.) alludes to Romans.
After Ephesus (431 A.D.)
Vincent of Lerins
(c.434 A.D.)
Socrates (c.400-439 A.D.) Socrates' Ecclesiastical History
Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.)
Hesychius of Jerusalem (-450 A.D.) (pronounced HESS-us)
Speculum (fifth century)
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.)
Quodvultdeus (c.453 A.D.)
Eucharius (ca.424-455) Instructiones
Theodoret of Cyrus (bishop and historian) (423-458 A.D.)
Patrick of Ireland (420-461 A.D.) refers to Romans as scripture
Pope Leo I of Rome (440-461 A.D.)
Prosper of Aquitaine (426-465) alludes to Romans
Varimadum (445/480 A.D.)
Evidence of heretics and spurious books
Marcion
(c.160 A.D.) refers to Romans as by Paul, according to Adamantius and Tertullian.
Tatian (died 170 A.D.) alludes to Romans 1:20 in Address of Tatian to the Greeks ch.4 p.66.
The heretic Manes (262-278 A.D.) accepts as scripture Archelaus quoting Romans 5:14. Disputation with Manes ch.29 p.202
Manichaean heretic Faustinus of Milevis/Milevum (after 383 A.D.)
The heretic Priscillian (c.385 A.D.) refers to Romans 8:11
The Donatist heretic Tyconius (after 390 A.D.)
Extreme Arian Eunomius of Cyzicus (c.360-383/394 A.D.)
The heretic Pelagius (416-418 A.D.)
The Pelagian heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia (392-423/429 A.D.)
The Pelagian heretic Julian of Eclanum (c.454 A.D.)
We still have all of these today.
3. Earliest manuscripts we have of Romans show there are small manuscript variations, but zero theologically significant errors.
p10 (=Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 209) Romans 1:1-7 (4th century). Alexandrian text
4th century - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
p26 Romans 1:1-16 c.600 A.D. Agrees with Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus
c.600 A.D. -1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
p27 Romans 8:12-22,24-27; 8:33-9:3; 9:5-9 (3rd century) The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts has a picture of part of a page of p27 on p.109.
3rd century - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
p31 Romans 12:308 7th century. Agrees with Sinaiticus
7th century - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
p40 Rom 1:24-17; 1:31-2:3; 3:21-4:8; (2 out of 19 letters of 6:2), 7 out of 62 letters of 6:3) 6:4-5; (7 out of 56 letters of 6:15); 6:16; 9:17,27 (3rd century) Alexandrian text.
3rd century - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament does not mention verses 6:2-3, 15
p46 Chester Beatty II 100-150 A.D. Romans 5:17-6:3; 6:5-14; 8:15-25,27-35; 8:37-9:32; 10:1-11:22; 11:24-33; 11:35-15:9; 15:11-16:27, and other parts of Paul's letters and Hebrews. (233 verses of Romans) The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts has a photograph of part of p46 on p.192. It also says on p.197-198 that the quality and the stichiometric marks show that a professional scribe wrote this.
First half of 3rd century - 1936 - Frederic G. Kenyon according to The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.
2nd century, 200 A.D. - 1935 - Ulrich Wilken according to The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.
200 A.D. - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
81-96 A.D. - 1988 - Young Kyu Kim according to The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.
About 200 A.D. - 1975 - Aland et al. third edition.
About 200 A.D. - 1998 - Aland et al. fourth revised edition.
Early to middle 2nd century - 1999 - The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. This is based in part on the handwriting being very similar to Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 8 (late first or early second century) and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2337 (late first century).
p61 Romans 16:23,25-27; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 2-6; 5:1-3, 5-6, 9-13; Philippians 3:5-9, 12-16, Colossians 1:3-7, 9-13, 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3; Titus 3:1-5, 8-11, 14-15 Philemon 4-7. c.700 A.D.
c.700 A.D. - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament.
About 700 A.D. - 1975 - Aland et al. third edition and 1998 - Aland et al. fourth revised edition
p94 Romans 6:10-13,19-22 (5th/6th century)
p113 (=Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 4498) Romans 2:12-13,20 (3rd century)
Uncial 0220 (c.300 A.D.) Romans 4:23-5:3; 5:8-13 (c.300 A.D.) The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.646 says this manuscript agrees with Vaticanus everywhere except on Romans 5:1. It also says that while Romans 5:8-13 is there too, it is too damaged for reconstruction.
Vaticanus [B] 325-350 A.D.
Sinaiticus [Si] 340-350 A.D.
Old Syriac (c.400 A.D.)
Syriac Peshita (443-)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (444 A.D.)
Bohairic Coptic [Boh] 3rd/4th century
Fayyumic Coptic [Fay] 3rd/4th century
Sahidic Coptic [Sah] 3rd/4rth century
Alexandrinus [A] c.450 A.D.
Gothic [Goth] 493-555 A.D.
Ephraemi Rescriptus [C] 5th century
Armenian [Arm] from 5th century
Claromontanus [D] 5th/6th century
Ethiopic [Eth] from c.500 A.D.
 
See www.BibleQuery.org/romMss.html for more on early manuscripts of Romans.
 
 
 

For more info please contact Christian Debater™ P.O. Box 144441 Austin, TX 78714. www.BibleQuery.org


 December 2016 version. Copyright (c) Christian Debater(tm) 1997-2017. All rights reserved except as given in the copyright notice.