........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".
Romans was not written to us......
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by DQuixote, Jun 22, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
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.
-
This is essentially what he said during the interview:
Thus spaketh Hank Hanegraaff.
He speaketh not for me. :saint: -
-
-
Wow, there is now nothing left! -
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
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 -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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: -
-
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: -
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.
Ed -
MrJim is correct on reading and understanding "in context", IMO. :thumbs:
Ed -
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
Just goes to show you the absolute power of words.....even words like, "to" and "for". :laugh: :laugh:
-
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
-
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
-
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........... -
Page 1 of 2