About Doug Roman

Doug was born in Managua, Nicaragua to Christian parents. Because of civil war in Nicaragua, his family moved to San Francisco, CA, where he grew up. Doug began a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as an 11 year old boy. As he lay in bed one night, he realized that he was a sinner who needed to have his sins forgiven and spared of the eternal punishment sin brings (Romans 3:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:9). Doug experienced God’s love and mercy that night, March 21, 1985 (Romans 3:24-26). He accepted by faith the person and work of Jesus Christ and was reconciled to God (Colossians 1:20-21). At 17, he sensed the Lord’s leading him to full-time Christian service as a Pastor. He obeyed the call and began training for ministry at Pacific Coast Baptist Bible College in San Dimas, CA where he graduated with a Bachelor’s in Theology. The Lord then directed him to Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, MN to pursue graduate school. He graduated with a Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling (2000) and a Master of Divinity (2004). God brought Julie Oftelie into Doug’s life when he moved to Minnesota. Doug married Julie in 1999. They have four children, one of whom is with the Lord. Doug loves to spend time with his family and enjoys books, fishing, hunting, and football (49ers fan).

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “About Doug Roman

  1. Have you ever looked into the Catholic Church?

    I wouldn’t want to ever be accused of not sharing my Catholic faith with another, whether you agree with my faith or not.

  2. Hi Nick,

    Well, I’m not sure that asking the question “have you ever looked into the Catholic Church” is sharing your faith. I admit that I appreciate the assumption behind your question though, namely that Protestants and Catholics are not of the same tradition. But to answer your question, I have considered some of the doctrines of the Catholic church and have found them to be inconsistent with Biblical truth. A handful of examples . . .

    1. The dual authority of Scripture and tradition

    2. Justification through the sacraments

    3. The ex opere operato understanding of the sacraments

    4. Mary as a mediatrix

    5. Catholic hierarchical structure with a Pope as its head

  3. Hi,

    I can understand why you have those objections, but what if I told you Sola Fide, especially the notions of “imputing the righteousness of Christ,” as well as Penal Substitution were not Scripturally based? I believe the main issues are your points #1 and #2, the rest really hang on that.

    My webage has articles discussing these key Protestant doctrines (in fact I’m in a written debate with a Calvinist on Penal Substitution, also available), as well as an article examining the Westminster Confession’s definition of Sola Scriptura:

    http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/

  4. I understand that the notion of penal substitution is under attack. Thus books like this and this were written to remind us that the Bible has much to say about penal substitution. This book also tackles the issue of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

    It seems to me that these writing are a very small sampling of the desire by conservative evangelical pastors and theologians to show that these doctrines are at the heart of the Bible in general and the NT in particular. It is what I preach and teach too.

  5. Thank you Doug.

    My goal/calling is to get the word out that such books repeat the same errors and presumptions, and are more or less oblivious to the Catholic alternative. The stuff I bring up in my debate, the Catholic alternative interpretations of key texts for example, I guarantee those books have never even realized alternative interpretations existed. My goal is to show alternative interpretations do exist, and to convince Protestants that such alternatives cannot be brushed off if they want to be sure they are doing honest exegesis.

    It is very hard and painful for me to speak to Protestants who have devoted their life to Sola Fide, for me to explain to them it simply isn’t Biblical. I realize that for pastors and such their whole career is on the line. So this isn’t a game for me to invest time trying to explain why doctrines like Penal Substitution and impute are wrong.

    Here is a great example, the term “impute” used in places like Romans 4 is “logizomai” in Greek. What most Reformed theologians dont mention and instead assume is that logizomai (“impute”) means to give something a status which it is not inherently. But that is very false. Logizomai appears 40 times in the New Testament and hardly ever means to look at something other than what it really is.

    Take these three examples where logizomai appears (in bold) in Scripture:

    Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

    Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

    Rom 8: 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.

    In each case what is being reckoned/imputed/conted/logizomai is in fact the INHERENT truth of the object. Romans 6:11 above says reckon/count/consider/impute yourself dead to sin because that is an inherent truth of yourself as a Christian. This usage is the trend you will see with the overwhelming majority of times logizomai appears.

    The problem is so much of Protestantism hangs on “impute,” that most assume their definition is correct, and those who know Greek are usually afraid to see what might show up if they look at how the NT uses logizomai (I’m talking about people like Piper, James White, William Webster, etc, etc, who wont do a lexical analysis of the word).

  6. Nick,

    A couple of statements are making me question your credibility. First, “I guarantee those books have never even realized alternative interpretations existed” is doubtful. Second, “those who know Greek are usually afraid to see what might show up if they look at how the NT uses logizomai” is another statement that is rather silly. It’s analogous to say that these men and others, like me, are intentionally squelching Scripture that don’t fit our evangelical theology. While not out of the realm of possibility, I reject such statements out of hand. Don’t forget that Sola Fide was not the only pillar of the Reformation, so was Sola Scriptura.

    As to your explanation/definition of the word logizomai, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are proposing.

  7. Doug,

    I do understand what you are saying about my “credibility,” but I assure you I’m not speaking off the cuff. I’ve read and looked into numerous works by Reformed authors and they simply either miss or avoid talking about certain issues. I’m not sure how well read you are in terms of Reformed books and articles online, but I have yet to see one addressing logizomai in any depth beyond merely stating the term in Greek.

    Another very, very closely related passages is Psalm 106:30-31 (uses the same words as Gen 15:6). Many Reformed books and articles totally skip over this passage when interpreting Gn 15:6. Others try turning it into another subject, neglecting even trying the simple option of applying the same interpretation to Gen 15:6.

    Quote: “As to your explanation/definition of the word logizomai, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are proposing.”

    What I’m proposing is that when you look at how the Bible uses logizomai, all 40 times it uses it, it hardly ever uses it to mean what Protestants say “impute” means. Almost every case it means “consider what is inherently true” about the object. Thus when Abraham’s faith was “logizomai as righteousness” it means the act of faith was inherently righteous and God affirmed that.

    Protestants from the start have maintained that the term MEANS to “consider OTHER than what is inherently true” about an object. Thus when it comes to Abraham, they say an external righteousness was counted to be his, because in reality he had nothing inherently righteous to show. That interpretation is not based on sound lexical examination of how logizomai is used in Scripture.

    The above examples I gave you use logizomai, and they go against the Protestant claim:

    In Rom 3:28 Paul “reckons” faith justifies rather than the Law, that is an inherent fact that faith justifies while the Law cannot justify. If you applied the Protestant definition Paul would be saying faith doesn’t really justify and the the Law does, but we are going to go ahead and say faith does.

    In Rom 6:11 Paul reckons the Christian dead to sin, and that is a inherent truth that a Christian is truly dead to sin. If you used the Protestant definition Paul would be saying reckon yourself dead to sin but in fact you are not really dead to sin.

    In Rom 8:18 Paul “reckons” the glory of Heaven cannot be compared to this life, and that is an inherent fact that Heaven goes beyond our imagination. In the Protestant definition it would mean this life is comparable to Heaven, but we are going to go ahead and say it is not.

    Do you see where this is going? Have you seen any Reformed books or articles point out passages like this? I speak in all honesty when I say I have yet to see a Reformed author discuss the subject in any relevant depth.

  8. Nick,

    Sorry about the delayed response.

    I see at least three flaws with your argument concerning the definition of logizomai.

    The lexical flaw. I don’t find any authoritative lexical support of your definition of logizomai, which is “consider what is inherently true.” For example, both BDAG, 597 and TDNT, 284-92 seem to militate against your view. What lexical authorities support your definition?

    The contextual flaw. The very context point to the lack of righteousness with the analogy of merit. Righteousness has to be counted. In 3:28 Paul addresses what is apart from works and in 4:3, 4, 5 speaks of wages not counted, which is consistent with the protestant understanding. As I’m sure you know the meaning of the word is ultimately determined by its context, which I’m not sure you’ve accounted for sufficiently.

    The theological flaw. Do you also reject the idea that sin was imputed? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (as undoubtedly you know is written by your current Pope) argues that sin has been transmitted, but as to how it remains a mystery (§404). The point is that RCC dogma concedes sin is transmitted. It seems to allow for the protestant idea of imputation.

    What I think will help me better understand your position is to ask this: are we righteous enough to merit salvation? If not, where do we get the righteousness we lack?

  9. “The lexical flaw. I don’t find any authoritative lexical support of your definition of logizomai, which is “consider what is inherently true.” For example, both BDAG, 597 and TDNT, 284-92 seem to militate against your view. What lexical authorities support your definition?”

    Nick: I don’t have access to those sources, but my “lexical authority” is simply looking up all 40 times the NT uses it. Also, there is a popular Protestant Lexicon which I’m using that says:
    ——————-
    “This word deals with reality. If I “logizomai” or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”
    “[Greek lexicon based on Thayer’s and Smith’s Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” These files are public domain. ]”
    http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3049&version=kjv
    ——————-

    “The contextual flaw. The very context point to the lack of righteousness with the analogy of merit. Righteousness has to be counted. In 3:28 Paul addresses what is apart from works and in 4:3, 4, 5 speaks of wages not counted, which is consistent with the protestant understanding. As I’m sure you know the meaning of the word is ultimately determined by its context, which I’m not sure you’ve accounted for sufficiently.”

    Nick: I do agree context is important. What I’m saying is how it is used in various contexts goes against the Protestant usage. Taking that factor into consideration is no small thing, it gives an idea of how it is to be used. Romans 4 does not automatically mean the Protestant usage is correct, in fact the “count what is inherently true” fits Romans 4. The clincher is Romans 4:4-
    Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.

    Now, the term “credited” here is logizomai. Look at the two possible usages:

    Protestant- Wages are NOT credited as gift by as debt BUT they in fact are gift and not debt. This is because “logizomai” to you means to consider other than the inherent truth.

    Catholic – Wages are NOT credited as gift because INHERENTLY they are not gift but inherently debt. That is because logizomai properly identifies inherent truth, and wages are not inherently gift.

    “The theological flaw. Do you also reject the idea that sin was imputed? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (as undoubtedly you know is written by your current Pope) argues that sin has been transmitted, but as to how it remains a mystery (§404). The point is that RCC dogma concedes sin is transmitted. It seems to allow for the protestant idea of imputation.”

    Nick: Yes I reject the notion of imputed sin. Sin caused an actual loss of grace in the soul of Adam and all men, this is not imputation. It is as if Adam passed on a real genetic disease, all the children are inherently sick and alienated from God, that is not imputation.

    “What I think will help me better understand your position is to ask this: are we righteous enough to merit salvation? If not, where do we get the righteousness we lack?”

    Nick: I think 2 Cor 3 describes the situation the best:
    “3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!

    This passage states clearly: We are not competent in ourselves, it comes from God. The Indwelling of the Spirit is what brings life and righteousness. That’s the essence of salvation. Nothing to do with imputation.

  10. Nick,

    Simply referencing the same source you used, you’ll find this idea in the sematic range: “to make an account of metaph. to pass to one’s account.” Sounds like the Protestant idea of “imputation” to me. If you are going to do serious lexical work, you should get BDAG and TDNT.

    Part of my “contextual flaw” point is that the word can mean something fixed. But not in every single instance. It seems to me that you are imposing a single denotative idea on the word, regardless of the context. Nevertheless, once Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer’s account, we are forensically right before God–i.e., a fixed stated.

    I wasn’t precise with my question on imputation. I intended to go down the route of imputed guilt, more so than imputed sin. How did Christ become sin for us if our sin and guilt was not imputed to Him? Certainly you hold to the view that Jesus did not sin. The imputation of our sin on Christ is part of the Protestant idea of imputation: my sin for Christ’s righteousness.

    Finally, if the Spirit brings righteousness, how does it become mine?

  11. “Simply referencing the same source you used, you’ll find this idea in the sematic range: “to make an account of metaph. to pass to one’s account.” Sounds like the Protestant idea of “imputation” to me. If you are going to do serious lexical work, you should get BDAG and TDNT.”

    Nick: I never said it couldn’t mean other things, I said it is a small minority. Again, I’m taking all 40 occurrences in consideration when I speak.
    I will take your suggestion for those books into consideration, I’m just not sure where to get them.

    “Part of my “contextual flaw” point is that the word can mean something fixed. But not in every single instance. It seems to me that you are imposing a single denotative idea on the word, regardless of the context. Nevertheless, once Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer’s account, we are forensically right before God–i.e., a fixed stated.”

    Nick: I hear what you are saying and have taken care to try and avoid that. My point is that Protestants go into Rom 4 assuming it means “count other than what is inherent,” when that is a presumption. The much larger usage of logizomai by far (both in OT and NT) is the opposite of that, and thus that definition should be given first preference. And, as I noted with Rom 4:4, which uses logizomai, the definition cannot be the Protestant usage because the verse would not make any sense. This also allows passages like Ps 106:30-31 to be interpreted without any problem with Paul.

    “I wasn’t precise with my question on imputation. I intended to go down the route of imputed guilt, more so than imputed sin. How did Christ become sin for us if our sin and guilt was not imputed to Him? Certainly you hold to the view that Jesus did not sin. The imputation of our sin on Christ is part of the Protestant idea of imputation: my sin for Christ’s righteousness.”

    Nick: I reject the idea of sin imputed to Christ because I don’t believe Scripture teaches that. This notion is a critical issue which my Penal Substitution debate is addressing (including passages like 2 Cor 5:21). Christ “became sin” in that He took on our weakened flesh and was made a sin offering (this is straight from Augustine). Nothing to do with imputing sin/guilt. For something as critical to Protestant theology as the Great Exchange, I see no clear Scriptural proof of sin imputed to Christ, nor Christ’s Righteousness imputed to us.

    “Finally, if the Spirit brings righteousness, how does it become mine?”

    Nick: By the Indwelling of the Spirit. When the Spirit indwells, your soul is spiritually alive and righteous (Rom 8:10).

  12. Nick,

    So here’s what I’ve been able to gather about your theology:

    1. You do not believe in the imputation of original sin, rather original sin is a loss of grace. I’m not quite sure what a “loss of grace” means. Sounds like an offshoot of Pelagianism to me.

    2. You do not believe that our sin was imputed to Christ, rather Christ became sin by virtue of His incarnation. I don’t know how you reconcile this with Isaiah 53:5 and Galatians 3:13. Moreover, to use the term “sin” as an appellation for “incarnation” seems like a stretch.

    3. You do not believe in imputed righteouness, and we are not pronounced righteous, but rather we possess righteousness when the Spirit indwells us. This even contradicts Catholic theology on justification (though I realize that this is another huge point of departure between protestants and catholics).

    Here’s another article that you may or may have not considered. I would commend it to your reading. I think it once again disproves your refutation of the protestant idea of imputation. Not only this, I think it also shows that protestants have not avoided a study of the word logizomai or the notion of imputation as you suggest.

    Nick, because some of the views you’ve expressed go against Catholic teaching, are you really Catholic?

  13. Quote: 1. You do not believe in the imputation of original sin, rather original sin is a loss of grace. I’m not quite sure what a “loss of grace” means. Sounds like an offshoot of Pelagianism to me.

    Nick: Pelagianism denies a loss of grace, so the Catholic view cannot be Pelagian. Grace is what adheres in the soul and makes the soul alive and righteous, it is essentially God’s presence dwelling in you. That’s why Paul constantly talks about the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which he calls the Spirit of Adoption, because without that man cannot be in a relationship with God.

    2. You do not believe that our sin was imputed to Christ, rather Christ became sin by virtue of His incarnation. I don’t know how you reconcile this with Isaiah 53:5 and Galatians 3:13. Moreover, to use the term “sin” as an appellation for “incarnation” seems like a stretch.

    Nick: True, we do not believe sin/guilt was imputed to Christ. I think you misunderstood the incarnation part, Romans 8:3 (NASB) explains it: “sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh
    That’s how “became sin” is to be interpreted.

    Quote: 3. You do not believe in imputed righteouness, and we are not pronounced righteous, but rather we possess righteousness when the Spirit indwells us. This even contradicts Catholic theology on justification (though I realize that this is another huge point of departure between protestants and catholics).

    Nick: Where/How does this contradict Catholic theology? I’m taking my definitions from Trent itself. Session 6:7 says “we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us.” Justice is the older term for ‘righteousness’.

    Quote: Here’s another article that you may or may have not considered. I would commend it to your reading. I think it once again disproves your refutation of the protestant idea of imputation. Not only this, I think it also shows that protestants have not avoided a study of the word logizomai or the notion of imputation as you suggest.

    Nick: I looked through that article, but it did the very thing I’ve warned about. It did not look at how chashab/logizomai is used as a whole and instead quoted a small sample of preselected passages (which most upon careful examination don’t even support the Protestant usage, eg Lev 7:18;17:4). Also, it falsely quotes Philemon 1:18 as a example of usage, when the word does not appear there.

    It makes a false/misleading defining statement: “it makes no difference whether that which is imputed is something which is personally one’s own prior to the imputation…or something which is not personally one’s own prior to the imputation.” The fact is, it hardly ever means the latter, and the only example it gave for the latter was Philemon 1:18 (which doesn’t even use logizomai).

    Look at the introductory passage for chapter 2:
    “Three acts of imputation are given special prominence in the Scripture, and are implicated in the Scriptural doctrines of Original Sin, Atonement and Justification, though not usually expressed by the words chashabh and logizomai.
    This should be a red flag to anyone reading it. Why is imputation so critical for Original Sin, Atonement, and Justification, when the very words for impute are not usually used? The fact is those terms are never used in regards to Original Sin or Atonement, and it is improperly used for justification.
    It goes onto say logizomai is a “forensic” term, but that is not accurate, it rarely is used that way. It goes right on to used “impute” to explain Original Sin and Atonement (and justification), all presuming that is the proper definition of impute and that impute is even used in the Bible to describe those things.

    It also says “the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ was first fully and clearly stated at the time of and following the Reformation,” this should also be cause for concern, because it’s saying Christians before Luther never properly understood the plain teaching of Scripture.

    The article you gave did not quote a single Scriptural passage which used “impute” to describe Original Sin. The article says the same thing about sin imputed to Christ: “That our sins are imputed to Christ is not expressly stated in the Scripture.” The passages it does give in the section on the imputation of sin to Christ are misinterpreted, and I in fact cover such misinterpretations in my Penal Substitution debate Opening Essay. As for the “imputed righteousness of Christ,” there is no such passage offered that teaches this, it must be built out of various ideas, and hinge upon a presumed/biased definition of imputation.

    While that article laid out the classical Protestant understanding, it is the same arguments put forward in any Reformed article/book, which I believe are grounded in presumptive exegesis, especially in regards to the term “impute.” Unfortunately, this article is not much different than the other works I’ve read, avoiding a fair and thorough study of the “impute” term both in presuming a certain definition and even applying the definition where the word doesn’t even appear!

    Quote: Nick, because some of the views you’ve expressed go against Catholic teaching, are you really Catholic?

    Nick: I am a Catholic and I adhere to all Catholic teaching. I’m not sure where you see a contradiction in what I’m saying with Catholic theology, because I speak with the Council of Trent in mind.

  14. Nick,

    I’m winding down the discussion at this point. But before I do, you did not address Isaiah 53:5 and Galatians 3:13. I’d also like to see you tackle 1 Peter 2:24a, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.”

    You say, “It makes a false/misleading defining statement: “it makes no difference whether that which is imputed is something which is personally one’s own prior to the imputation…or something which is not personally one’s own prior to the imputation.” The fact is, it hardly ever means the latter, and the only example it gave for the latter was Philemon 1:18 (which doesn’t even use logizomai).”

    The point of the citation in Philemon 18 is to support the notion of imputation bound up in the word logizomai, which you’ve conceded, though in a guarded way (“it is rarely used that way”). You are using all too pliable rules for making your case. You categorically reject the protestant idea of imputation, while saying that the word logizomai is “rarely” is used in the sense of “imputation.” You can’t have it both ways.

    To say that “the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ was first fully and clearly stated at the time of and following the Reformation” is not to say, as you argued, that “Christians before Luther never properly understood the plain teaching of Scripture.” The articulation of doctrine did develop over time. It seems a bit disengenuous to make that statement as a catholic, whose church depends on Scripture and tradition (i.e., the interpretation of the church fathers).

  15. I don’t mind if we wind this down about now.

    I’m glad we had this talk and if you don’t want to continue, I will make this my last response.

    (1) I did not go into Is 53:5 and Gal 3:13 and 1 Peter 2:24 because I did not want to flood your blog with long posts. I have dealt with them in my Penal Substitution debate already, and I have invited you to have a look since I first posted. I would assume it would be rude if I simply cut and pasted big quotes from my Debate Essay.

    (2) About using Philemon 1:18: I believe my position is quite fair in that the fact it doesn’t use logizomai makes it an unacceptable reference to define logizomai.

    (3) When I say logizomai is rarely used in the Protestant sense, that’s a fact based on an unbiased look at the Biblical evidence. And I’m not intending to be arrogant when I say I have yet to see an unbiased full look at logizomai by a Reformed source, and I don’t believe such a thing exists. The fact Philem 1:18 has to be brought in as the MAIN support only bolsters my claim.

    (4) Given that it is rarely used in the Protestant sense, my sole and constant claim has been it is presumptuous for Protestants to plow ahead using that definition of impute for righteousness, atonement, and original sin. (not to mention the latter two don’t even have the term impute ever applied to them in Scripture, and your own source admitted this)
    In other words, you cannot just assume impute means the Protestant definition in Romans 4, yet that is precisely what ends up happening. The greatest usage (by far), the opposite of the Protestant definition, is never tested to see if it fits Romans 4 – and this despite the fact Rm 4:4 clinches this definition.

    (5) My point about the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s Righteousness shouldn’t be that controversial. Luther and Protestants have been adamant that this is the heart of Sola Fide and is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. If people before Luther didn’t grasp or see this critical doctrine in Scripture, then that’s a red flag in my opinion. If you read Luther’s one page “Tower Experience” he says his interpretation of the “righteousness of God” as being “that with which God clothes us when he justifies us” was something he could not find in the fathers. I don’t see where the development came for this doctrine, especially when you realize the true ramifications of the doctrine. The Reformed are the most logically and systematically consistent in this regard, and they draw from this further doctrines such as Once Saved Always Saved, rejection of Baptismal Regeneration, rejection of judgment according to works, etc, etc, and yet the fathers held the exact opposite of such views, meaning Sola Fide could not have been a development.

    All I’ve asked is that Reformed first look to Scripture before turning to their theologians, because in the case of logizomai all it takes is a bible, a lexicon and a spare hour of time to see something which I PERSONALLY have yet to see any Reformed author, theologian, book or article will explore: the 40 times logizomai is used in the New Testament. This is about desiring to see what the Bible really says, to not look into this is the equivalent of saying you don’t want to know what the Bible says. To turn to Philemon 1:18 is a total cop-out, which sadly many Reformed references I consult end up doing. I assure you, once you invest that hour, at the very least you will ask yourself why your Reformed teachers never look into how logizomai is used.

  16. You get the last word.

    You have not made a compelling case. I affirm the perspecuity of Scripture, so I do not think one needs a Ph.D. and sophisticated “lexical authorities” to come to understand the sense of Scripture, though these things may help. Sitting down with a Bible and reading the verses is enough. But one also brings their presuppositions. I don’t think your take on the use of the word logizomai is as objective as you claim it is. I do hope that you come to see the many errors of the Roman Church and come to a faith which depends on Christ alone by faith alone.

    Romans 5:1-2 “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. [2] Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”

    • Pastor,

      You were extraordinarily gracious and patience in your responses. Thank you for spending so much of your precious time to challenge and witness to Nick.

  17. Pastor Roman, Thank you for reposting my blog. You do have our permission, but I didn’t know how to respond other than leave a comment here. I hope the Lord uses it.

  18. Thanks Amy for your permission to repost your blog. The good news of Christ is worth proclaiming as widely as possible. Thank you for your ministry to me and so many others during this time in your life. The Lord has already used it and I too hope He will continue to use it. Grace and peace to you Amy.

  19. Doug,

    I am in no way some internet person trying to cause trouble or malice and this is in no way intended to be negative. (I say this because I know alot of people are and sometime when I ask these questions on blogs or other discussions people get offended.)

    While it is true that I believe Christ and the New testament I have questions that are hard for me to answer and sometimes weigh heavy on my mind. These questions weigh heavy on my mind because firstly, this is my faith and if it is my faith, I should have a knowledge about the things I profess. Secondly I should be able to defend my faith if necessary which brings me to the reason I would like to contact you. (I couldnt find an email and work computer has an old version of Internet explore so page shows up funny. Hope you dont mind me posting here.)

    When I think about the Word of God there are many things I don’t understand but I accept them because its what I have been taught and I know God is true, he sees and knows me and will bring to me exactly what I need so that I can have eternal life with him. But concerning the gospels and some of the things written in them I have questions. Such as..

    1. if Jesus and the Father are one in the same why exactly would Jesus say in the garden, “Father if at all possible remove this cup from me..” when just shortly before he calls Peter a Satan for speaking against him going to the cross. Why would Jesus, the same Jesus who is always saying anyone who wants to hold on to his life will lose it and anyone who loses his life for God will gain it, be the same Jesus here in the garden begging for his life in a sense?

    2. When he is on the cross why does he cry out, “God why have you forsaken me..” if they are by virtue the same person how can they ever be separated? If it was indeed true that it was The Father’s plan all along to send Jesus to the cross, why then would he turn from him, the one who is being obedient? Most people I encounter throughout the day would say something like, “because God can’t look at sin..” But I read in a commentary, I believe it was Enduringword.com maybe not.. But the person said that in the Bible when it mentions sin not being able to be in the presence of God or God can’t look upon sin, what it is really saying is God does not approve of sin, not can’t be around it or look at it. So this knowledge just continues to further distances myself from understanding that particular moment on the cross.

    I hate to think about these questions because I feel like when I question it I’m doubting it. But I need to know the answer because it will help to solidify my faith and hope. …

    Then when I think about the trinity it is even more difficult to understand.. Jesus said that the man who is sent is lesser than the one who sends him. He also said in John, the Father sent me and he is greater than I. So when I think hmm.. Father sends Son and Son sends Spirit.. Does this mean in my worship I should consider Father the highest Son below him and Spirit below the son? If they are not equal how can they be the same? ..

    I had a discussion of Jesus being God with a Muslim and his arguments or points are very solid and I can completely understand why they believe that Jesus was just another prophet and “A” son of God but not “THE” son of God. I read a post by Tishrei from fruitoftheword.com and it talked about the word for “one” God (Deut 6:4) meant the same as “one” law in that yes it is one law but a unified one law. It was one law but had many parts.. But Muslims refute that as to say it is in the wrong context.. Also we talked about Jesus when he said David said “My lord said to my lord sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.” They take it like, that is Jesus saying he isn’t any kind of deity because he is a son of David and if who David is talking about Calls him Lord then how can Jesus be anything more than a (not THE) son/prophet of God.. Anyways I would just like to see what you or more knowledgeable people you know have to say about these things.. I’m afraid to ask others because I don’t want to burden their faith with these questions they probably can’t answer either.

    Mainly what I want you to get from this is that, though I believe, I don’t fully understand How Jesus is God, Father is God, Spirit is God. I’ve read some of your posts and it seems like you believe this to be true so I wanted to get your take on it. I understand Jesus being God’s one and only son but I don’t get how he is also God if God says in Duet, there is only ONE God (the LORD your God is ONE). Please find time to answer a fellow saint. Thank you kind sir.

  20. Thanks for your questions. If you are truly seeking answers, I would be happy to interact with you. Doubt is normal and not something to be ashamed of. Your questions deal with the essential truths of the Christian faith. It seems to me your questions surround three primary issues: the deity of Christ, the trinity, and the relationship between the three persons in the godhead. I’d like to ask you to read three online articles to begin our exchange. Have you heard of the gotquestions.org website? If not, I will introduce you to the site. Here’s an article on the deity of Christ: http://www.gotquestions.org/deity-of-Christ.html. Here’s an article on the trinity: http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html. And here’s an article on subordination in the trinity: http://www.gotquestions.org/subordination-Trinity.html. Let me know if these articles help you with your questions.

      • I just have a few questions about a very big question someone asked me. They went in many, many directions with it.

      • Well, just to start out (this is separate from the broader question), can Satan be accurately defined as a demon?

      • There are basically two categories of angels: holy angels and fallen angels. If the term demon = fallen angel (and it should), yes. The Bible reveals Satan is the supreme evil being who ardently opposes God’s purposes and people (2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2). He is called the Devil (Matt 4:1; Eph 4:27; 6:11; Jude 9), a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), the evil one (John 17:15), the serpent (2 Cor 11:3; Rev 12:9), the great red dragon (Rev 12:3, 7, 9), the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10), the tempter (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), ruler of this world (John 12:31), god of this world (2 Cor 4:4),
        prince and power of the air (Eph 2:2), and the believer’s adversary (1 Pet 5:8).

      • But isn’t Satan being a fallen angel taken from Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14, which you argue does not apply to Satan? Or is there somewhere else?

      • When we first encounter the Devil in Genesis 3, he is already a fallen angel. So we only know him as a fallen angel. Like you said, I argue that Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 don’t apply to Satan but I think we can reasonably assume that he, along with the other fallen angels, were originally holy angels.

      • Triple,

        Your questions would undoubtedly advance a stimulating discussion. However, there are other authors who will have a much better handle on your specific questions. Have you considered interacting with your pastor(s) on the subjects you mentioned. That would be my recommendation. Even if you have already or you don’t have a pastor for some reason, it would be difficult for me to give the time to interact with you on these questions and I don’t think this blog (or any other electronic media, e.g., email) is the best forum for such a discussion. This is the kind of discussion that is best had in a one-to-one setting. So I’ve appreciated the interaction with you Triple but I’m going to wind down our conversation. Thanks for stopping by and visiting my blog.

  21. I was just browsing, not intending to participate, but this was a surprise: “When we first encounter the Devil in Genesis 3, he is already a fallen angel.” In Genesis 3 we see that God lied, and serpent was the only one telling truth. That is unusual for the Devil. And indeed, Jews insist that Satan is always a God-obedient servant. Bad Satan is a Christian invention, they say. Whatever anyone believes, even if being a “falling angel”, isn’t a duty of an angel to always speak the truth? So, what was the guilt of the serpent here? It never disobeyed God, serpent was not instructed to remain silent. Instead foreseeing what will happen, God freaks out. My question is: is there a chance that some day Christians may rehabilitate a poor serpent?

  22. Hello,
    There are believers who subscribe to the teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This teaching is propounded by a certain group within the users of the KJV. They claim that Psalm 12:6-7 is one of the proof texts that teach the preservation of God’s Word. I believe God preserves His Word in His own miraculous way, otherwise we would not have His Word today.
    Would appreciate it if you could throw some light on this ‘new’ teaching and the proof text.
    Thank you,

    Andrew

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s