Coming to you today, dwelling in the present moment of thanksgiving.
Thankful for the cross, for a merciful God who died for my every sin, my every failure.
Think about that, saints.
Each of us can look back over the span of our lifetime and think of all the many failures, all the many times we failed.
But when we finally arrive at the point where we're able to admit, I am nothing, I can do nothing, I have nothing, I'm a wretch, it's then that this beautiful picture of God's reconciliation begins to take shape in our mind.
God died for every one of our sin failures, and he did so before we were born.
On the cross at Calvary, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, and there he stopped imputing our sins.
What a joy to be saved, sealed, and positionally already seated in heavenly places, fully alive in Christ and eager to serve him.
Today we're beginning a new study of the book of Romans.
Some call the book of Romans the foundation of our faith.
Many misguided assumptions and inaccurate teachings have come from here.
The errors are multilayered.
Some say Romans is like a textbook to tell you how to live, but don't understand Paul's reasoning for making clear the difference between the carnal and the spiritual man.
Some call Romans a curriculum for sonship edification, and claim the gospel for salvation only consists of some vague faith in his blood, something they got from Romans 3.
And then some have the idea of the Romans road to salvation, the confess with your mouth gospel, taken from Romans 10.
These are some real foundational errors.
Imagine that.
The book many call the foundation of our faith is where they also find a way to preach a different gospel.
And they tell the newly saved individual to go home and start with the book of Romans.
Not Philippians, not Ephesians or Colossians, but they throw them headfirst into the theological deep sea of Paul's longest letter, one that deals with vast issues from the perspective of a mixed audience, Jews in the flesh who know the law and heathen Gentiles.
And then expect them to parse all this out on their own.
Okay, before approaching verse 1, let's lay some groundwork.
Rome had a very active and tight-knit Jewish community.
Many miss this.
They think because the book is titled Romans, it was written only to Gentiles.
But there were Jews in Rome, a lot.
Even Paul, a Jew himself, was a Roman citizen.
Rome is where Priscilla and Aquila lived.
They lived there, Acts 18 verse 2.
They lived there up until the time that Claudius expelled all the Jews from the city.
After being kicked out, they traveled to Corinth to find shelter, and that's where they met Paul, heard his gospel, and received the free gift of salvation.
Now at some point, we know Priscilla and Aquila returned to Rome.
Otherwise, Paul would not have greeted them in chapter 16.
The church in Rome was not made up of all Gentiles.
So if that's the picture you have in your head, erase it and start over.
Jews had an established, rather large community there.
When Priscilla and Aquila went back with Paul's gospel, many Jews believed, got saved, and began meeting in the home of Priscilla and Aquila.
As time went on, Gentile believers, they also began to join them.
Priscilla and Aquila are not members of the little flock as some teach.
In Romans 16 verses 3 and 4, we find this, Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks, and to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
As we brought out in our Book of Life podcast, notice what Paul doesn't say here.
He doesn't say Priscilla and Aquila, whose names are written in the Book of Life.
He doesn't say Priscilla and Aquila, who were in Christ before me.
No, because they were not little flockers.
They were in the body of Christ.
Later on, they traveled with Paul and went to Ephesus.
That's where they met Apollos and gave him Paul's gospel.
Apollos was not of the little flock either.
Some teach that, but that's error.
He was a Jew from Africa, Alexandria, Egypt, who only knew of the baptism of John.
Dr. Luke described him in Acts 18:26 as an eloquent man who spoke boldly and was mighty in the Scriptures.
He was speaking in a synagogue when Aquila and Priscilla found him.
They pulled him aside and began to expound unto him the way of God more perfectly, gave him Paul's gospel.
After that mob of Jews had murdered Stephen and the kingdom program diminished, Paul's gospel was the only hope for a Jew like Apollos, and the only hope for that established Jewish community back there in Rome as well.
Those Jews who had been expelled but were allowed back into the city after the edict that Claudius had against them, after it lapsed.
An edict is basically just an official order, you might say.
The book called Romans, when you read it, just know that you're reading a letter written to a mixed Jew and Gentile audience, and you can see that by the contextual reading alone.
Of course, when I say Jew and Gentile, I'm speaking to their background, their upbringing.
As we all know, in Christ, God makes no such distinction.
No more Jew or Gentile, but now Jew and Gentile, the one new man in Christ.
But Paul's letter was written to, quote, All that be in Rome, and the all consisted of a vast array of people.
Not recognizing this will cause a host of theological issues.
This Pauline church that met at Priscilla and Aquila's house were former Jews who knew the law and former Gentiles who knew about the law.
My wife said it that way, and I thought, that's perfect.
And if you'll read Romans with that in mind, it'll make much more sense.
The recipients of this letter were former Jews who knew the law and former Gentiles who knew about the law.
Gentiles were without the law and only knew about it because those Jews were trying to put them under it.
A fellow who thinks Paul's preaching to the little flock in parts of the book of Romans, he asked me, he said, if Paul wasn't addressing the little flock, then who's he trying to move from law to grace?
The Jews, Jews who knew the law.
They were brought up in it.
They were the very ones Paul was commissioned to go to, unsaved children of Israel.
But never, not once, did Jesus send him to convert an already believing kingdom saint.
If a kingdom saint showed up at one of Paul's assemblies, there's one thing we can all know for certain.
They were not there to get saved.
To enjoy fellowship with other believers or to assist Paul in some way?
Yes, Paul actually wrote about that, called them fellow laborers.
But nowhere will you find that they were there for salvation.
Serious students of scripture can see this, but those who are a part of the group that believes there's such thing as alternative facts, they cannot.
Some act as if the little flock believed Peter's gospel until Paul came along and said, hey guys, I got one better.
Never happened.
Romans will become easier once you understand that there's more than one group of Jews found in scripture.
And Priscilla and Aquila were not of the little flock, but rather the ones who took Paul's gospel back to Rome, started spreading the news, the good news, and established a church that met in their house.
When some hear the word baptism, they automatically think water.
Even though there's around a dozen different baptisms in scripture, many having nothing to do with water.
Well, likewise, when some hear the word Jew, they automatically think little flock.
Big mistake.
The little flock is just that, little.
Most of Israel were outside the little flock.
And it's what made them candidates to be saved by Paul's gospel.
Synagogue attending, circumcised, law keeping, pork abstaining, professing to believe in God but not Jesus, Jews.
But after believing Paul's gospel, they were among the church that met at Priscilla and Aquila's house, right along with some Gentiles.
Get that set in your mind.
We got to recognize the distinctions so we don't go in blind.
There's more than one group and being able to identify and distinguish each one is crucial.
As we go through Romans, we'll see that this assembly of believers that met at Priscilla and Aquila's began to experience some problems.
The body of Christ Jews were clinging to some of their old Jewish beliefs, traditions, customs, laws, and so forth, and were confusing the body of Christ Gentiles.
Paul had to deal with that, which is evidenced by what he wrote.
Paul's goal was to foster unity between the two.
He was trying to move the Jews away from the dung pile of their former religion and into the realm of the one new man of grace.
During this study, we'll deal with a variety of doctrinal problems that are birthed right here from the book of Romans.
We've even heard it said that the gospel Paul preached in Romans is either an all-out kingdom gospel or some sort of hybrid kingdom-slash-grace gospel.
The imaginations of men.
And some even say that the Jewish believers in Rome really weren't Jewish at all, but rather Greeks or Gentiles that were nigh to Israel.
People come up with all sorts of amusing ideas to fill in the blanks they draw when they can't answer a question or have a problem with how a verse reads.
Paul never preached the prophesied kingdom gospel, and he never preached any sort of hybrid gospel either.
He preached his one new man, my gospel, and he never crossed over and preached his my gospel for Peter's group to get saved.
And proof of that is found right here in this book, in the book of Romans.
Paul himself promised to never lay upon another man's foundation.
He wouldn't do it, Romans 15:20.
He said he would never preach where Christ had already been named.
Now a true Bible believer, if they had any question about whether or not Paul went behind Peter and tried to convert a little flocker, if they believe the Bible as they say they do, they'd stop at this verse and say, nope, he did no such thing.
That's how clear Romans 15 is to a Bible believer.
Nothing ambiguous about it.
Paul would never contradict himself, and if he did, this Bible belongs in the trash.
Christ had most definitely been named among the little flock, so Paul would never have tried to convert any of them.
In Galatians 2, he shook hands with the head apostles and agreed to keep his gospel separate.
During this study of Romans, we'll see who Paul was talking to and why.
We'll see why his mention of the day of wrath in Romans 2 makes perfect sense when it's framed correctly.
We'll look at who's being spoken about regarding remission of sins.
We'll study out some things Paul struggled with in the flesh concerning the law and why he's even talking about the law in the first place.
We'll show that mankind throughout all dispensations have not always been saved by grace through faith alone without works.
Romans 11:6 says, no more of works.
No more means it once was.
That simple.
Neither has everyone always enjoyed eternal security outside of Paul's dispensation of grace.
For some reason, this Baptist version of once saved, always saved has snuck in the mid-acts back door.
We'll address some passages found in Romans that are used to fuel this grace regressing or sin from grace compromisers.
We'll take a look at where the false doctrine of sonship edification puts its roots in Romans chapter 8.
We'll look at some verses in Romans used by Universalists to prop up their salvation of all dogma.
We'll find out what the faith of Christ is and is not.
We're going to see whether or not Gentiles are grafted into that olive tree in chapter 11.
We'll go over what we're to be fully persuaded in our own minds about.
We'll hit that when we go through our instructions for living life after salvation.
We'll demonstrate how we know the Gentiles were never under Israel's law.
Never were and still aren't.
We'll take a look at how prayer functions under this current administration.
We'll look at the way Paul addressed the Jews and the flesh here in Romans and compare it to the practical application for us today.
And we'll find out the who, how, and why of marking others.
And we'll tie it all up with the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
We have a lot of ground to cover regarding the problems that have been created from the book of Romans.
Reading all the way to the end of the letter answers a few things here at the beginning.
Okay, glad you're here.
Let's get started.
The book of Romans, an outstanding epistle from our apostle Paul, actually written and transcribed by Tertullius.
Okay, Romans 1, verse 1, Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised to for by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son Jesus our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
Verse 4, And declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead.
Okay, some teach that when Paul, here in verse 1, wrote the, quote, Gospel of God, he is using that as a descriptive of a gospel all by itself.
Received a video for review of a pastor from Ohio who used this verse, verse 1, to say Paul taught more than one gospel.
He said, quote, Right out of the bat, it tells us that Paul was separated into a prophesied gospel.
Then he said, quote, Paul taught the gospel of God, and he also taught the gospel of Christ, end quote.
That's incorrect.
Incorrect on both accounts.
Paul never preached a prophesied gospel, and there are not multiple gospels in Paul's letters.
And we'll prove it with scripture.
He also said, quote, The saints at Rome are exclusively or at least predominantly Gentiles, end quote.
And he claimed to know that because in Acts 18:2, Priscilla and Aquila departed from Rome when the Jews were run out by Claudius.
But if you read the whole book, the whole book of Romans, which I imagine he has, but maybe he missed it, but don't fail to see that in Romans 16, Paul asked those of Rome to greet Priscilla and Aquila and the church that is in their house.
Don't miss it.
Obviously, by the time Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, Priscilla and Aquila had returned back home, back home to Rome.
The Jews in the flesh, a man and wife ministry duo saved by Paul's gospel, Priscilla and Aquila had formed a church in their house.
They taught Paul's gospel to other returning Jews and some Gentiles who already lived there, which would explain why Paul wrote to a church he'd never visited yet were already aware of his gospel.
Paul begins the letter by proclaiming himself to be an apostle separated unto the gospel of God.
He then goes on to declare a part of this gospel he preaches.
Some go to great lengths to make the gospel of God a gospel all by itself.
It's not.
They take the phrase, gospel of God, parse it out and limit it to only pertaining to Israel and their kingdom.
This leads to fallacy within the body.
And it's responsible for the doctrine that says Paul taught more than one gospel.
Think about it.
Some can't get past the first verse of Paul's first book without making a mess.
It's wrong to ignore portions of scripture we don't like and equally wrong to insert unintended meanings where we don't understand what's being expressed.
Saying that he taught more than one gospel is certainly not the answer.
Because of this, this, this faulty interpretation of the gospel of God, we even have some who teach that Paul was speaking to Jews only in over half of his letters.
And that only a few, the four epistles he wrote from prison, were written to quote, Gentiles like us, a teaching that is fully embraced by Acts 28ers as well as some mid-Acts circles.
Some pre-Trib rapture deniers also lean into this position as well as those who say the little flock is part of the body of Christ.
And some ride the fence and split the audiences within all of Paul's epistles as if he's writing to two different groups with two different purposes and two different eternal destinations within each epistle.
Chaos and confusion, man.
Chaos and confusion.
But all of these different sects, they all have something in common, their understanding of the gospel of God.
They all parse it out and read meaning into it that's not there.
If you began Romans 1:1 out on the wrong foot, you're probably going to stumble through the rest of the book.
You'll get some things right and a lot of things wrong in this very long letter that covers several topics for several reasons and for specific readers.
Romans is a serious book that deserves more than a cursory read, so there'll be times when we'll gear down, hang out a while, and dig in.
So you'll want to have plenty of coffee.
The point is this, Paul didn't preach multiple gospels.
The gospel of God, the gospel of Christ, the gospel of his son, the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of peace, and Paul's my gospel are all the same.
To claim that Paul's mention of the gospel of God is the same gospel of God Peter preached is an open door to some real contextual issues difficult to explain without perverting Paul's doctrines.
That's why the Acts 28 ism, 12 in the body of Christ, Paul writing to the little flock, and the pre-trib deniers, that's why they even exist.
They find fuel in proclaiming that Paul preached more than one gospel and or preached two different audiences, with two different purposes, and different destinations.
When the interpretation of the gospel of God is reduced and limited down to only being the information contained in Romans 1 verses 3 and 4, it presents a multitude of problems.
Let's identify a few.
Problem number one, we find this in Romans chapter 15 verse 16, watch, That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, there it is, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Now think, if the gospel of God is only the information in Romans chapter 1 verses 3 and 4, how does this verse make sense?
How would knowing the information in Romans 1, 3, and 4 alone make the Gentiles quote Acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost?
Oops, now you're left with an unfinished puzzle with pieces that don't fit, made a big old mess and it's spread out all over the kitchen table.
Hey, you can't be made acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Ghost without hearing and believing that on the cross Christ paid for your sins.
Information not in Romans 1 verses 3 and 4.
No mention.
See the error?
It appears that the Paul preached multiple gospels club haven't thought this through very well.
Problem number two, let's travel to 2 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 7, Have I committed an offense in abasing myself that you might be exalted because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
There it is again.
So, ask yourself, why would Paul limit the supposed offense he speaks of here as pertaining only to the information found in Romans 1 verses 3 and 4?
Here again, the Paul preached multiple gospels line of reasoning just doesn't work.
With scripture, it doesn't take long to dismantle the house of straw.
Problem three, now it presents itself over here in 1 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 2.
But even after that we had suffered before and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
So are we to assume that Paul suffered and was shamefully entreated at Philippi because he only preached that Christ was the Son of God, the seed of David, the Messiah?
And that he didn't preach of how Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose the third day?
See the issue?
And watch what he wrote in the next chapter, chapter 3 verse 2,
And sent Timotheus, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you and to comfort you concerning your faith.
So only one chapter later, Paul's nomenclature changes from gospel of God to gospel of Christ without a blink of an eye.
We find nothing here to suggest that there's any difference between the two.
They're used interchangeably.
That should speak volumes.
It should tell us something.
See, when we limit the entirety of the gospel of God to only being the information Paul provided in Romans 1 verses 3 and 4, we limit the good news of God to being only one thing.
A gross error brought on from not allowing context and how the term is used in other locations to determine that it's just simply good news given from God.
That's the gospel of God.
An example of this is in 1 Peter 4 verse 17,
For the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God.
If it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
So, Peter used the term, gospel of God, and the surrounding context, go read it, go read it yourself, the surrounding context of this verse alone should tell us that Peter isn't simply referring to Paul's Romans 1, Jesus was the Messiah, made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
Just a little common sense along with our scriptural reading will go a long way.
Is not the Galatians 2:7 gospel of the circumcision committed to Peter the good news of God sent to Israel?
Is not the gospel of the uncircumcision committed to Paul the good news of God for us, for Gentiles?
See where this is going?
Likewise, the Acts 20:24 gospel of the grace of God?
That's the gospel of God.
The gospel of the grace of God.
What about the Romans 1:9 gospel of God's Son?
Is that something different?
What about the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation?
Yep, all of these would be the good news, the gospel of God.
Paul wrote of it about a dozen times, Romans 1:16, 15:19, 15:29, 1 Corinthians 9:12, 1 Corinthians 9:18, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 9:13, 10:14, Galatians 1:7, Philippians 1:27, 1 Thessalonians 3:2, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8.
These who teach Paul preach multiple gospels have some serious, undealt-with issues.
Is not the Romans 10:15 and Ephesians 6:15 gospel of peace also good news, the good news of God?
Indeed, it is.
The gospel of peace is the gospel of God.
And in Paul's first letter to Timothy, we have Paul speaking in verse 11.
Now watch this, quote, ...glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
There it is, the gospel of the blessed God, the gospel of God.
The gospel of God is not just Romans 1.
But if we follow the logic of some, now we have Paul preaching the gospel of God as they defined it, here in 1 Timothy also.
That's just a big nope.
There's no mention here of the Romans 1, Jesus is the Messiah to Israel, the Son of God of the seed of David.
This entire gospel of God argument, it doesn't make contextual sense.
And once you stop and think, just take a moment and think about it, as you're doing here today, your common sense kicks in and it tells you that the glorious gospel of the blessed God is just simply referring to the entirety of the gospel that was given to Paul.
That's it.
Just as it is in Romans 1.
You see, when searching for teachers to study along with, be sure you find those who respect context.
They stay with context and they compare scripture with scripture, rightly dividing the word of truth.
And those, those are the ones you should, Philippians 3:17, mark for an ensample, not an example, an ensample.
So there are those to mark for an ensample and there are those to Romans 16, mark and avoid, avoid those who are full of good words and fair speeches and get in line with those who cut it straight, cut to the heart of the matter.
Leaving out all the unnecessary and irrelevant content and just get down with it.
Okay, here's the final problem with assigning multiple gospels to the apostle Paul.
What about when Paul just uses the phrase, The gospel, which one of the supposed multiple gospels is he talking about there?
Did you know that he uses the term, The gospel by itself without any descriptors such as of God or of Christ a total of 36 times?
So if he preached multiple gospels, which one is he referring to of the 36 times he used the phrase, The gospel?
Which gospel is that?
Which gospel is his, my gospel?
Which gospel is the Ephesians 1:13 gospel of your salvation?
The obvious is that Paul only preached one gospel and it's why he wrote my gospel, not gospels.
It's also why he shook hands with James, Peter, and John and agreed to only preach one.
The agreement, the agreement concerned one gospel, the gospel of the uncircumcision.
Not it plus the gospel of God plus the gospel of peace, the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of Christ.
As if all of these are separate gospels, that's nonsense.
The gospel of God is not limited to what's written in Romans chapter one, verses 3 and 4.
Certainly that information is part of the gospel of God, but not all.
I challenge anyone from the Paul preached more than one gospel camp to compare Romans 1, verses 3 and 4 concerning his son, Jesus made of the seed of David, declared to be the son of God by the resurrection of the dead.
Compare those words with what Paul calls his, My gospel in second Timothy 2:8.
Watch this, watch,
Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.
Did you catch it?
Romans 1, Jesus Christ our Lord made of the seed of David.
2 Timothy 2, Jesus Christ of the seed of David.
Romans 1, by the resurrection from the dead, 2 Timothy 2, raised from the dead according to my gospel.
They're the same.
Bible students not afraid to exercise Acts chapter 17, verse 11, cannot help but notice the glaring obvious here.
The gospel of God in Romans 1, that some say is different, contains the exact same information as what Paul calls my gospel in 2 Timothy 2:8.
The simple conclusion is the one gospel that Paul preached was from God, therefore, it's all the gospel of God, the gospel of God for this dispensation of grace.
Paul says my gospel, not my gospels.
Put that to memory.
Our gospel is inclusive of Jesus Christ being the prophesied Son of God and the seed of David resurrected.
Hey, if we don't believe Jesus was exactly who he said he was, then there's no salvation for us in this dispensation either.
If we don't believe that Christ was God in the flesh, then we believe that mere man was perfect enough to never break a single law and have blood holy enough to pay for our sins, and that a mere man was worthy of resurrection and to ascend into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father.
The gospel of God is simply the good news of God for all dispensations containing different instructions for different people at different times for different purposes.
The everlasting gospel in Revelation is even a gospel of God.
Let's stop making things up and just teach what we know.
Making up new doctrines, causing unnecessary confusion and contradictions, that's what's going on.
Our goal is to deliver optimal and sustainable truth and if you want God's best, just allow the scriptures to mean what they speak to whom they speak.
God can then go to work in us and work his way out through us.
The good news is God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
He hasn't been imputing sins to anyone's account for around 2,000 years now.
He has risen to give you new life in him.
Just exercise your faith today.
Join us next time as we pick up here in Romans chapter 1 starting with verse number 5.
Add comment
Comments