Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: − + Line 40:
Line 40: − +
Epistle to the Romans (view source)
Revision as of 02:53, October 19, 2017
, 02:53, October 19, 2017→Controversy: linked antinomianism
==Controversy==
==Controversy==
As Paul is seen as specifically providing a formal treatise on the actual means of salvation, not by the merit of our works but by "the gift of righteousness" (Rm. 5:17), it is often seen to be in tension (most particularly) with James 2, and has been abused by some as to mean that works are not necessary as an evidential outworking of saving faith, giving birth to ''antinomianism''.
As Paul is seen as specifically providing a formal treatise on the actual means of salvation, not by the merit of our works but by "the gift of righteousness" (Rm. 5:17), it is often seen to be in tension (most particularly) with James 2, and has been abused by some as to mean that works are not necessary as an evidential outworking of saving faith, giving birth to ''[[antinomianism''''.
Romans 9 through 11 deals with [[predestination]], the basis for which is the cause of disagreement between [[Arminianism]] and [[Calvinism]]
Romans 9 through 11 deals with [[predestination]], the basis for which is the cause of disagreement between [[Arminianism]] and [[Calvinism]]
Another notable issue is the lack of any mention of Peter in the epistle, even among the many friends Paul greets in chapter 16, an absence many [[Protestants]] see as conspicuous,<ref>Barnes, ibid.</ref> as the [[Roman Catholic church]] holds Peter to have been the head of the church there, and first [[pope]].
Another notable issue is the lack of any mention of Peter in the epistle, even among the many friends Paul greets in chapter 16, an absence many [[Protestants]] see as conspicuous,<ref>Barnes, ibid.</ref> as the [[Roman Catholic church]] holds Peter to have been the head of the church there, and first [[pope]].
A most recent controversy has been due to various attempts by prohomosex polemicists to portray [[Romans 1]] from unconditionally condemning male and female homoeroticism.
A most recent controversy has been due to various attempts by prohomosex polemicists to portray [[Romans 1]] from unconditionally condemning male and female homoeroticism.
== See also ==
== See also ==