Can We Talk ? (Part 3) - The Heart of the Matter (Romans 1)

[RagamuffinBlues]

In 'Can We Talk ? (Part 2) - The Lord’s Supper ? ( post #41 ) , though I surrendered a poem of sorts as my reply ( post #44 ) as and extension of the ideas expressed in post 41, I referenced St. Paul’s letter to the Romans: chapter 1, as making my point, in reply to the initial question, expressed in post #37 , which was a reply to post #1 , where I was pointing to the heart: ‘What I am talking about is the Real, Real Presense of Christ, by His Spirit in our hearts.’ As this was ignored, and the thread was subsequently closed, with the words ‘Sounds like you’re arguing for sacraments here!’ ( post #45 ) - I would like to surrender the section chapter from Romans, to which I was referring to, in hopes that it will clarify the point I was attempting to make, and because I defer not to my own prose or logic, but the Christian sacred texts.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[e - Or is from faith to faith] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”[f -Hab. 2:4 ]

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

From: Romans 1 @ Bible Gateway

Sincerely,
RagamuffinBlues

 

[JRKH]

OK - I’ve come and read through the threads and really find nothing here to clarify what was being discussed on the form and content thread.

If you have specific examples of things you’d like to address please post them.
If you’d like to discuss the development of doctrine or church structure etc we might be able to do that was well.

If not then that is fine too.

Either way I wish you well on your faith journey.

Peace
James

 

[FightingFat]

I have to say, I remain confused as to the point you’re making too. I’ve had a look at the passage you quote though in case I’m missing something.

I don’t know how much you understand of Catholicism, but it might be worthwhile to inform you that we hold to a practice of careful discernment in order to learn the full sense of Scripture as it includes a literal and a spiritual sense together. This does not mean that we should read into the Bible meanings that are not really there. Rather we should consider exegesis a sacred science that proceeds according to certain principles and stands accountable to sacred tradition, the Magisterium, and wider community of biblical interpreters (both living and deceased).

In searching out the full sense of a text, we should always avoid the extreme tendency to “over spiritualise” in a way that minimises or denies the Bible’s literal truth. St. Thomas Aquinas was well aware of this danger and asserted that “all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (STh I, 1, 10, ad 1, quoted in CCC116). On the other hand, we should never confine the meaning of a text to the literal, intended sense of its human author, as if the divine Author did not intend the passage to be read in the light of Christ’s coming.

That said, I’ve tried to pull out some stuff you might be alluding to here, with the help of some well known commentaries on the text.

v. 17 refers to one of the towering themes of Romans which has two related meanings:
1). It denotes the covenant faithfulness of YHWH revealed through the history and Scriptures of Israel. God shows himself righteous when he keeps his promises and fulfils his covenant commitments to bless the righteous and rain curses upon of the wicked. (Neh 9:8; Ps 50:6; 143:11; Dan 9:14; Zech 8:8).
2). It also denotes an inward grace that establishes the faithful in a right covenant relationship with God (5:17; Phil 3:9). These two meanings work together in Romans, especially in 3:21-26.
Through faith by faith: From start to finish, the Christian life advances by faith. The expression that Paul uses here suggests he envisions a steady increase in faith (the same prepositions are used in the same sequence in the Greek versions of Ps 84:7 and Jer 9:3)

In 1:18-32 Paul reflects on the moral and spiritual depravity of the gentiles, although God placed himself and his law within the reach of their rational minds (1:19), they defiantly turned their backs to him, piling ingratitude upon impiety (1:21) until their sins smothered his truth within their consciousness (1:18) this diagnosis of the pagan corruption is close to the Jewish assessment chronicled in Wis 11-14.

1:20 speaks of his invisible nature: Paul contends that our minds can rise to a knowledge of God’s power and divinity by reflecting on the grandeur of the world (Wis 13:5; Acts 17:26-28). Failure to do this is inexcusable since God has made it possible everywhere and at all times (CCC 1147). Everything is, in principle, capable of embodying and communication the divine. There is no finite instrument that God cannot put to use. On the other hand, we humans have nothing else apart from finite instruments to express our own response to Gods self-communication. Just as the divine reaches us through the finite, so we reach the divine through the finite. The point at which this “divine commerce” occurs is the point of sacramental encounter. For Christians, the point of a sacramental encounter with God is the humanity of Jesus Christ, the primordial, or primal, sacrament.

1:21 minds were darkened: this speaks of the damage wrought by persistent sin on the human faculties.

1:23 exchanged the glory: Idolatry; the most conspicuous error of paganism, Paul alludes to Ps 106:20 as a subtle reminder that Israel, too, has stumbled down the path of idolatry.

1:24 God gave them up: God does not hold back his judgement on sin until the end of of history but manifests it throughout history as well.

1:27 Passion one for another: Condemnation of homosexuality in unity with the OT.

1:28-32: One of several lists of vices in Paul’s writings (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21). Here Paul is showing us how chaos erupts in families and society when the relationship with between God and man breaks down.

1:32: they know God’s decree: Even the pagans possess a moral awareness of right and wrong. Because of this, they can no more defer responsibility for their wickedness than plead ignorance of God’s existence (1:21) (CCC 1776, 1954). approve those who practise them: The Gentiles are guilty of adulation, i.e. the sin of applauding others for their wrong-doing. Praising sinners is itself sinful because it emboldens them to continue in their evil ways.

Having (name removed by moderator)ut not inconsiderable effort, I await enlightenment! :newidea:

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

I wish you well on your faith journey.

I am not on a ‘faith journey’, I am on ‘the pathway’ < Jesus said, ‘I am the way/pathway’ ( since July 1976 ) - Read: From Abraxas To Jesus

To summarize: The first post to Catholic Answers Forum, was ‘Can We Talk?’ (closed) , which blossomed into** ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 2) - The Lord’s Supper (closed)** , and has been concluded in this post, ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 3) - The Heart of the Matter (Romans 1)

The object: A free flowing conversation, which began with the Eucharist, and seems to have ended up with an exploration of how ‘the heart’ is revealed in Romans 1.

James,
There is no need to be dismissive.
If you wish to drop out, that is fine by me, but the intention of this inter-faith free flowing discussion, is to move away from the traditional slam-dunk-RCC/other-apologetic-routine (You ain’t gettin’ no converts here, so g’bye) eg:

If you have specific examples of things you’d like to address please post them.
If you’d like to discuss the development of doctrine or church structure etc we might be able to do that was well.

So where do we go from here?

Let’s be friends. You see, after I moved on to ‘What Are You Reading?’, I was forced to make this third post (here) , due to the fact that the previous one was closed after a single dismissive comment, which left me no opportunity to respond.

I might consider replying to FightingFat’s ‘I have to say, I remain confused as to the point you’re making too.’ and other type sliding comments, but for now, I am happy to move on with ‘What Are You Reading?’ See you there.

Peace,
RMB

ps. I see you have responded to Form and Content - RCC in 2011 ? . Spot yer.

 

[FightingFat]

:doh2:

 

[JRKH]

I am not on a ‘faith journey’, I am on ‘the pathway’ < Jesus said, ‘I am the way/pathway’ ( since July 1976 ) - Read: From Abraxas To Jesus

To summarize: The first post to Catholic Answers Forum, was ‘Can We Talk?’ (closed) , which blossomed into** ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 2) - The Lord’s Supper (closed)** , and has been concluded in this post, ‘Can We Talk?’ (Part 3) - The Heart of the Matter (Romans 1)

The object: A free flowing conversation, which began with the Eucharist, and seems to have ended up with an exploration of how ‘the heart’ is revealed in Romans 1.

James,
There is no need to be dismissive.
If you wish to drop out, that is fine by me, but the intention of this inter-faith free flowing discussion, is to move away from the traditional slam-dunk-RCC/other-apologetic-routine (You ain’t gettin’ no converts here, so g’bye) eg:

So where do we go from here?

Let’s be friends. You see, after I moved on to ‘What Are You Reading?’, I was forced to make this third post (here) , due to the fact that the previous one was closed after a single dismissive comment, which left me no opportunity to respond.

I might consider replying to FightingFat’s ‘I have to say, I remain confused as to the point you’re making too.’ and other type sliding comments, but for now, I am happy to move on with ‘What Are You Reading?’ See you there.

Peace,
RMB

ps. I see you have responded to Form and Content - RCC in 2011 ? . Spot yer.

My only comment on the above would be to ask why, since your desire is for “free flowing conversation” do you think I am being dismissive? Shouldn’t “freeflowing conversation” allow for asking questions for clarification and specifics?

Peace
James

 

[RagamuffinBlues]

My only comment on the above would be to ask why, since your desire is for “free flowing conversation” do you think I am being dismissive? Shouldn’t “freeflowing conversation” allow for asking questions for clarification and specifics?

Peace
James

As I said, ‘Let’s be friends’
So let’s move on to ‘What Are You Reading’

Moderators are free to close this thread too.

Thanks.
R.B.