Responses to Kevin’s questions

Q: But here is the question- was Christ not the Son of God from the beginning just as he was after the resurrection?

A: First thing’s first: Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was the Son of God prior to His resurrection (cf. Mat. 3:17; Mark 1:9; Luk. 3:22).  So whatever Rom 1:4 means, it does not contradict eternal sonship of Christ.  The thoelogical question you’ve asked is actually a loaded question MacArthur once espoused but later rescinded.  So, there is actually much written about the subject.  If you want to read up on this, I suggest you start with http://www.gty.org.uk/articles/sonship2A.htm.  Here are my thoughts: Scripture never states that the second person of the Trinity was ever non-Son; and since Scripture profusely describes Him as the Son, the burden of proof falls on the side that maintains incarnational sonship (i.e., He became Son at incarnation).  I haven’t heard any compelling arguments for incarnational sonship; therefore, on the bases of overwhelming evidence for eternal sonship I maintain eternal sonship.

Q: Also can titles be added on to God?

A: I’m not sure whether I’m understanding you correctly here.  You assume that the import of “appoint/declare” is becoming something you’re not already.  Grant that, I think you’re asking: can God become something in a point in time that He was not previously?  If that is your question, the answer is no.  God is all He is from eternity past to eternity future (recall the name of God: “I am who I am”?).  We call this “immutability” in theology.  Read a decent theology book like Grudem or Erickson and get a scoup on immutability, if you’re interested.

Q: And how does “according to the Spirit of holiness” come into play?

Α: I hold that spirit here is referring to the spirit of the person of Jesus.  The reason for it is quite simple.  Paul addresses Jesus’ identity as the Christ/Messiah upon two bases: his flesh and his spirit.  With the former, he explains that Jesus had a genealogical relationship to David thus legitimizing his Messiahship.  You would then think that the second one would complement the first, therefore, when spirit is mentioned it isn’t speaking of the third person of the Trinity, i.e., the Holy Spirit, but the soul/spirit of Jesus which was spotless and holy.  This also best explains why Paul doesn’t use the expression “Holy Spirit” but “spirit of holiness.”  BTW, keep in mind that Paul wrote in all caps, hence ignore all capitalization when you read.  So, all in all, your question becomes irrelevant the way I understand the passage.  That is to say, those who hold that spirit here is in fact the third person of the Trinity have a mess to clean up.  Not I, though.  =)

Q: Well my question is this 1. does scripture state that there is a specific agent by which resurrection takes place? Who raised Christ? Or who will raise us? Was it the Father or was the Spirit or was it Christ himself… this is when I say Jesus, God , Bible… hahaha because I don’t know.

A: This question appears to stem from your previous question.  So, in a sense, it’s irrelevant from my understanding of the text.  But let me quickly say this, though: Scripture indicates that the Father raised the Son from the dead (cf. Acts 2:24, 32; Eph. 1:20).  There is more to it than this, i.e., there is a difference between the transitive verb “raise” and the intransitive “rise.”  With the latter, NT would simply state that Jesus rose from the dead, hence no agent mentioned, but just because an agent isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an agent.  So, all in all, Scripture teaches that Jesus rose from the dead because the Father raised Him.  Okay, having said that, it sounds like your question goes beyond just the interpretation of Rom 1:4.  Is there a real theological issue here or is it more just out of curiosity?  If the former, let me know what the root issue is.

well well jacob, good to hear from yee

hey man it’s okay if you have limited resources… all you really need is a bible and just interpret to the best of your ability… but make sure it’s within the context and no heresy… that’s only for me… hahaha… ummmm… make sure to ask a lot of questions while you go through the passages and post them also…

To get on the same sheet of music

I must have missed the opening night. Could one of you brothers tell me what we’re trying to do here? I would like to participate but be advised I have very limited resources over here. I prefer to just listen and chime in occasionally.

yurie

yurie i don’t think thomas and dan are going to post on passages… i think they are only going to answer questions that we may have when the three of us post… so make sure that you have questions with your posting.

Posting SOPs

How about we do this:

Let’s give two weeks time for each post for people to sufficiently read and comment on the passage. Comments should be placed in the comments section of the passage post.
After that two weeks, ideally, the next person on the “list” should make a post concerning the next section of Scripture he wants to take up. Let’s just say that posts should be made on Mondays. If you miss your “deadline” post as soon as you can, and the Monday after it’s been up a full two weeks will be the new deadline for the next person.

We can go in the following order if no one minds: Kevin, Yurie, Thomas, Jacob, Dan. Dan, I’m not sure if you were planning on posting, or just commenting on posts, so that can be adjusted.

If you can think of more rules, add them to this post.

Kevin, post in “post.” Page is for creating static pages like if we wanted to put up a doctrinal statement, or an “about us” page, which you can do if you like!

Romans 1:4

i’ll stop here on verse 4… so one of you guys continue from verse 5… and also keep up with everyone in interpreting the verses so that there wouldn’t be the long delay before each posting… sorry guys. and also i’m sure everyone may have things that others may not have… and that is the whole point of doing this… so that we can comment on each others work…

hey man am i suppose to post in post or page? and oh yeah thomas and dan my questions are included in my post so you guys have to read the whole thing…

 

v.4

• Okay this verse has ideas that I’ve had difficulty understanding… “declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead” or others may put it as “appointed son of God in power”.
• Well I’ve seen McAurthur see this clause as Christ being given the title of Son of God and this idea is backed by guys like Moule who puts it this way, “one who is king by right of birth is yet ‘made’ king by being crowened.”
• So what I’m getting from these two is that the reason why Christ rarely used the title “Son of God” and preferred “Son of Man” in his earthly ministry is that the title of “Son of God” was not decreed/appointed/declared until His resurrection.
• But here is the question- was Christ not the Son of God from the beginning just as he was after the resurrection? Because that is the understanding of most lay Christians… that was the way I understood it, that “Son of God” was to help us understand the relationship of Christ with the Father in the scheme of the trinity.
• Also can titles be added on to God? Because when I think of being appointed or declared something… then that person is being appointed or declared into something that he is not, and if we take it the way Mac daddy and Moule takes it then it’s as if Christ is being promoted. Do you guys see what I’m trying to get at? This is a difficult passage for me to grasp and I don’t buy McAurthr’s and Moule’s interpretation.
• Oh yeah and to further increase the confusion where in the world did “with Power” or “in Power” come from?
• Morrison explains that “with power” may go along with “Son of God” because while Jesus was on earth he was in weakness because he took the form of man and he set his glory aside, humbling himself. But when he ascended Jesus got everything back.
• And how does “according to the Spirit of holiness” come into play? Morrison believes that Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit’s role in resurrection and designation of Christ as the powerful Son of God. He sites Black who states “according to common Jewish belief, the resurrection of the dead was to be the work of the Holy Spirit so the verse can be taken as “Christ was divinely decreed Son of God ‘in power’ i.e. miraculously, by a mighty act of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit effecting his Resurrection.”
• Well my question is this 1. does scripture state that there is a specific agent by which resurrection takes place? Who raised Christ? Or who will raise us? Was it the Father or was the Spirit or was it Christ himself… this is when I say Jesus, God , Bible… hahaha because I don’t know.
• Okay I’m gonna stop here because just doing this one verse is exhausting…

Romans 1: 1-3

v.1

• Paul’s introduction and he refers himself as a “bond-servant” or in other translations “slave” of Christ Jesus.  Interesting thing is that Cranfield points out that the word slave is offensive to use on another person for a Greek, but for a Jew it is an honor to be called “God’s slave” which was used as a title for guys like Moses and such.  I don’t know if I agree with him on this because Paul would be the last person on earth to some how elevate himself in anyway. 
• But I do agree with Cranfield on the idea that we are all Christ’s slave and with that carries the idea of total belongingness, total allegiance, total ownership and authority that God has over us. 
• Rest of the verse is pretty much self explained

v.2

• Pretty self explanatory concerning the gospel of Christ and how this was prophesied in the old testament.

V.3

• The linking statement is “concerning His son” and this verse talks about the fulfillment of the messiah coming in the line of David and taking the throne that will never end.
• Also talks about the humanity of Christ

ummm… i guess i need to put more time into this but this is what i have so far… cranfield is tough to read, very technical… so what do you guys think??  i'll do more for these three and i'll go up to a couple of more verses

Posting hints

First things first, make sure you have your "display name" set to your name so we know who posts what. Secondly, feel free to categorize your posts (look to the right), and categorize accordingly. If there isn't a category, make a new one. You can cross-categorize posts also, so if your analysis of Romans 1 also has applications in Systematic Theology or something, check all applicable categories (I haven't made a S.T. category). Third, save often. I would suggest you write it out and just copy-paste it in. That's all the posting hints I can think of now, but I think we're waiting on Kevin to start us off!