tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post4560642391699726922..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Do we make Romans too complicated?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49047436413105183132009-10-08T22:05:55.753+13:002009-10-08T22:05:55.753+13:00Thanks Howard
I have no idea if this is an origina...Thanks Howard<br />I have no idea if this is an original thought or not!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22072698914235024582009-10-08T17:04:28.164+13:002009-10-08T17:04:28.164+13:00"...we find that Paul develops an answer, or ..."...we find that Paul develops an answer, or an account which we might give to God which is satisfying as a whole, but not in its parts." <br /><br />Brilliant, Peter! This post of your has sat there for a couple of days without anyone responding, so I want to break the silence by commending you for the profundity of this insight. Is it original? If not, who is developing this solution within current debate on Romans, where most scholars seem to be searching for a single principle to unite the whole epistle? Does it have older historical roots, and if so where would we find it within post-Reformation discussion of Romans, or of justification in general? If it is your own, be encouraged to take it further. <br /><br />I think you have nailed the heart of Paul's confidence in God: it flows naturally from his wholehearted but multi-faceted response to the grace he has found in Christ. If it was something that could be captured in a simple formula, Romans would only be half as long and much less interesting.Howard Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.com