Romans was not written to us......

Without seeing the context of that statemen, technically that letter was written to that Church in Rome...but we do benefit from it. The entire book of Romans deals with the jewish people, and God's ultimate plan for mankind. It is soteriology wrapped up in a nice package.

 

I guess that webdog's use of the word "technically" is key. I haven't thought of it as "for" vs "to" before.

 

Except there's no mention of Romans in it.

 

He is correct in saying it was not written to us but is for us.

 

Wow, I have heard people cut out almost all of the bible as irrelevant today but that is the first I have heard of the Pauline epistles!
Wow, there is now nothing left!

 

well this isn't the first time Hank has been wrong. (Also in the above quote I don't see anything about Romans.)

The point here should be made that while the intention of Paul was for the Roman Christians in his day, the moment the letter was accepted by the Church and added to the NT Canonization process and ratified it became normative for us.

 

I don't see the problem. Paul did not think of StefanM, preachinjesus, or Scarlett O. when he wrote Romans. Period. It was not written TO us.

It is there FOR our benefit, though.

 

I've heard this idea though...that there is a context to all the NT letters and they have to be read through that context else it is subject to wild misinterpretations...there's a teacher named Frank Viola (not the baseball player) that has some books that teach toward that end.

Of course there's nothing to that idea, I mean look at the church today~even the Baptist church~and ya see that everyone clearly understands and interprets scripture properly and accurately:laugh: and there's never any arguments over this:tonofbricks:

 

What are you talking about?!? Who said anything about cutting out most of the Bible as irreleveant? Me thinks the strawman erecting has begun...

 

While the letter is addressed specifically to the church at Rome, Paul, who would not have been a 'member' of that church, at the time he wrote the Epistle, expands the scope of the letter, by the use of "we", later in the Epistle. So, in that sense, it is "to" us as well as "for" us.

I guess that technically, one could say that the only books of the NT that are addressed with a "broad enough scope" to be considered "to" us, by the 'wording' are I Corinthians, II Peter, Jude, and Revelation. But this seems to be attempting to overly overstepping the intent, IMO. Scarlett O., I believe it was, suggested the same with the citing of II Tim. 3:16, in different words. I agree. Though we are not the ones addressed, technically, all the Epistles are "to" us, and even moreso, in this, as, say, some of the OT prophets, which are addressed specifically to Israel or Judah. Properly, those books are "for" us, although not "to" us.

Just my two farthings worth.

Ed

 

MrJim is correct on reading and understanding "in context", IMO. :thumbs:

Ed

 

Uhhh....can you tell us which church accepted it and canonized it ?

 

I betcha somebody's bound to show up and say 2 Timothy 3:16 is a pastoral letter, written to Pastor Timothy. That'll be interesting.

 

Unfortunately there are people that think that. And what's even worse is the folks that believe the Scriptures are to us and for us but still do "their" own thing :tear:. You get all kinds.