Ro 5:1
¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ro 5:2
By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Ro 5:3
And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Ro 5:4
And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Ro 5:5
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Ro 5:6
¶ For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Ro 5:7
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Ro 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Ro 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ro 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Ro 5:11
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Ro 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Happy Halloween to you too :)

And this is supposed to mean what???? I see your mindless regurgitation of bible quote spam is back

Why is Romans called Romans ?

<link> xxxx

Sorry DD, the text doesn't actually say that. According to Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, whatever the title is, the definition of faith shifted between the first and 3rd century or so. The original Greek definition of faith was a covenant you "signed" into via rituals like baptism and laying on of hands, not simple belief. Hence, you are justified through the covenant you make and also your keeping of commandments, which was part of the covenant. Romans is commonly misinterpreted this way. It's unfortunately. And besides, merely believing most certainly doesn't NOT fit with the context of the NT. Proof (don't make me look these up):

1. Even the devils believe but aren't saved - James 2

2. You don't just "really believe" with your heart either because "faith without works is dead" - also in James 2

3. Jesus said faith is like a mustard seed, hence it must be cultivated

4. Many scriptures speak of "enduring to the end", meaning until your death; Paul is also fond of likening this to running a race, and that salvation after death is a "prize"

5. Jesus says in Matthew that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord", i.e. refer to him as the Lord thus believing, will enter heaven. Only those who do the will of the father will enter. Flat out says that not all believers will enter heaven - just those who do the will. And remember the rich man who asked what to do to be saved? Jesus never said "just believe". He said a few things, one of which was to "keep the commandments", which is God's will.

Ergo, "just believe" is foreign to NT teaching. It's corrupted doctrine derived from a corrupted definition of faith. QED (unformally of course, i.e. without the scriptural references)

P.S. I translated Rom. 10 once you know, using the correct definitions, context, and other justifications. Wanna debate Romans? :)

That could be an interesting post Patrick, sadly fortunateson is missing. And you know what the reaction would be ? You being the 'devil' of the moment :)

This is Nano btw not Dd :) I promise :) Dd has been posting as Wednec but seams to have disappeared again. They are though very different people :)

I agree with WL. Nano is not DD, and you don't own the definitive answer to the 'faith vs. works' debate. There is no definitive answer, since this subject involves a faith-based interpretation of a myth which cannot be tested for veracity. It is quite reasonable to argue for either side of this debate based upon contradictory statements in the scripture. Even the book of Romans is contradictory. You'll notice that Nano skipped past Romans 2.

5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

This is one of many scriptural disagreements that has led Christianity to splinter into different denominations. I suspect that Nano leans toward the Baptist POV, although he may not consider himself to be a Baptist.

WL, it is called Romans because this book of the Bible is attributed to an epistle by Paul to the Roman Church prior to his first visit to Rome as he traveled from Greece to Spain. The message is somewhat confusing because Paul is attempting to establish common ground between the Jewish believers in Christ as the Messiah and the Gentile (primarily ex-pagan) Church in Rome. There is a strong consensus among theologians regarding the origin of Roman Christianity as having been due to Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah. Public unrest caused by infighting among the Jews in Rome over whether Jesus was the true Messiah led to all Jews being exiled in 49 AD. After the Jews were exiled from Rome by Claudius, the Gentile Christians had taken leadership positions in the Christian Church in Rome. Paul was attempting to prevent a major foreskin schism in the Roman Church. The subsequent Protestant revolution seems to indicate a failure on his part to accomplish his desired goal.

Thank you Night. I cannot afford the time now but is it possible that Paul was actually a Christian as was before the RCC. A mixture of The Mysteries and The OT :) xxxx

Now they are named Gnostics but .........

I get the distinct impression that Paul was more than willing to modify his convictions as needed in order to establish a power base from which to operate. What one believed was not nearly so important as how many agreed to get on-board with those beliefs. Nothing new there. That story is much older than is the story of Christ the Messiah.

Most often violated Scripture...particularly by right-wing Christians-

Titus 3:2

Hello Patrick, I can understand your point of view.

Ac 28:26
Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:

Ac 28:27
For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Hi konark,

Happy Holloween right back at ya!

Thanks white light.

xxxxxxx