A Contradiction Concerning Beautiful Sarai
Douglas R. Larson berean@brookings.net
Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:07:15 -0600 (00879678435, 199711160504.XAA07933@serv.brookings.net)
> According to the OT account, Sarah greeted with laughter the announcement
> that she would have a son when she was 90, but the NT presented Sarah as
the
> epitome of faith when she heard this promise.
>
> >Hebrews 11:11 By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive
seed
> when she was past age, since she counted him faithful who had promised.
>
> As the story cited above shows, however, Sarah didn't have faith in the
> promise. She thought it so unlikely that she laughed at it. Yet there
are
> no inconsistencies in the Bible. If you don't believe me, just ask some
of
> the inerrantists on the list. They will tell you that the Bible is a
work
> of perfect harmony.
Excellent point! Funny how the writer of Hebrews, of which I'm sure he had
the written word, managed to twist the historical account around to make
his point. With this sort of dishonesty in "that record," then why do
Christians have a difficult time excepting a clear statement like this one
in Romans?
Rom 5:18
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
that brings life for all men.
Looks simple! So what hermeneutic principal can be supplied to deny the
clear meaning of this passage? Why, it could only mean that another
passage in scripture says just the opposite of this passage like Jesus'
words found in Matthew which states:
Matt 7:13-14
13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the
road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only
a few find it.
The problem with the Romans passage is that it applies a "universal
standard" to all men--the truth is that all men sin because of Adam's sin.
So, this same "universal standard" shows now, a "universal redemption,"
given to "ALL MEN," through one act of righteousness--this is the
justification. VERY CLEAR!!! No mistake about it!!! Just watch thousands
of theologians go nuts over this passage--and they have! Did Paul mean
what he said? Matt? Claire? Anybody?
Oh, the reason I brought this up was because Farrell reminded me of
twisting the record to suit the needs of the New Testament writers with his
example of Hebrews 11:11. Martin Luther stated that "Justification is the
doctrine by which the church stands or fall!" He is correct in a sense.
But historical orthodoxy HAS NEVER been in agreement as to WHAT
JUSTIFICATION IS. Abraham is often used as that example. But how were
those accounts of Abraham twisted to create a new definition of
"Justification by Faith?" A topic worth exploring! ;-)
Doug Larson
PS: St. Paul contradicts himself on the doctrine of justification
throughout the books of Romans. Why is St. Paul so confused?