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

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by DQuixote, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    ........according to "The Bible Answer Man", Hank Hannegraaff. It was written to Christians in Rome. While it is there "for" us, it is not "to" us. Therefore, we need not dismay ourselves with what it contains. In an interview on Christian radio today, he said the same thing about Galatians. He said some other interesting things, but I won't burden this post with those. Maybe later.

    What say you?

    p.s. He was promoting his "Legacy" bible and his book, "The Apocalypse Code".
     
    #1 DQuixote, Jun 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2007
  2. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I guess that webdog's use of the word "technically" is key. I haven't thought of it as "for" vs "to" before.
     
  4. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is essentially what he said during the interview:


    Thus spaketh Hank Hanegraaff.

    He speaketh not for me. :saint:
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Except there's no mention of Romans in it.
     
  6. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    He is correct in saying it was not written to us but is for us.
     
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  8. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    to - "a function word used to indicate the receiver of an act..."

    for - "a function word used to indicate the recipient of an activity"

    :BangHead:

    It's very simple. The book of Romans was written to the church in Rome. See Romans 1:7.

    The book of Romans was written for the entire bride of Christ. See 2 Timothy 3:16
     
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    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.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,423
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  11. MrJim

    MrJim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  12. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you talking about?!? Who said anything about cutting out most of the Bible as irreleveant? Me thinks the strawman erecting has begun...
     
  13. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    For those posters who "don't see Romans" in there, please combine my first and second posts. I guess I should have written, in the second post, something like "In addition to identifying Romans and Galatians as not "to" us, Hank said this: blah blah blah......"

    Further, Hank was saying that our interpretations of Romans as applying to endtimes prophecy is in error. It wasn't written "to" us to warn us about the endtimes. It was written to the church in Rome to warn them about 70 a.d. Galatians was written to the "foolish Galatians", not to us today.

    He identified Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey as responsible for rabid misinterpretation of scripture.

    (npetreley: This info about Tim and Hal is in addition to each of my posts. See, in English, we don't have to repeat some information each time we post. 99% of folks know that. If I can assist you further, please let me know.) :wavey:
     
    #13 DQuixote, Jun 23, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2007
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  15. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    MrJim is correct on reading and understanding "in context", IMO. :thumbs:

    Ed
     
  16. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    Just goes to show you the absolute power of words.....even words like, "to" and "for". :laugh: :laugh:
     
  17. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Uhhh....can you tell us which church accepted it and canonized it ?
     
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  19. DQuixote

    DQuixote
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2006
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I've figured it out. If we just see the whole of the NT has written to folks back then, then we can say that it contains a lot of good ideas for us, but nothing demanding our attention. Then we can pick and choose whatever good ideas speak to each of us. Someone will blow it, though, by forming the "Church of Good Ideas" and they'll spring up on every corner. Sort of like our public schools where kids are taught that truth is relative. Or Kenneth Copeland and his "I said you are gods!"

    :1_grouphug: <----discussing good ideas...........
     
  20. J. Jump

    J. Jump
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...