Talk:Epistle to the Romans

"Homosexual behavior"
This is some clever parsing by someone trying reverse engineer the bible to say what they want it to say. "Leaving the natural use of women" means that God's natural design of human beings is as heterosexuals and that homosexuality goes against that design and is not in God's favor. This doesn't mean that Paul is only condemning people "on the down low" and not speaking to gay people, too. It's silly and dishonest to assert otherwise. --98.198.18.187 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "among heterosexuals" phrase you excised is not a universally-accepted interpretation of the passage and should have been removed. However, the current wording - condemning all "homosexual behavior" without qualification - is not without controversy.  (Of course, neither interpretation is a "silly or dishonest" interpretation since the text doesn't specifically preclude either).  See the discussion of Romans 1:26 here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc4.htm  If anything, the section should be rewritten to acknowledge conflicting viewpoints of the text.  I've modified it to attempt neutrality in the meantime. 173.79.14.8 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Co-incident with SCOTUS gay marriage ruling, someone attempted to modify the article back to "homosexual behavior." In light of the (supported and linked) dispute acknowledged by the above comment, I reverted to neutral viewpoint. If you want to rewrite to say "homosexual behavior," the other viewpoint should be acknowledged as well. 65.114.147.218 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All such discussion on this topic misses the larger context: that the main point of these verses was Paul's explanation for *how* and *why* homosexual acts between men happened in Rome, which he declares is ultimately due to the Romans' idolatry (i.e, because they worshipped the wrong gods, this caused God to "give them up" to unnatural desires, wives gave in and let their husbands do them in the bum, and once they'd gotten that far, men started going for each other).

This, in a nutshell is Paul's explanation for why homosexuality exists. Maybe a plausible hypothesis at the time and place it was written, but 2,000 years of being put to the test did not confirm that one. (Note also, Paul's passive reference to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians was while making the point that Christians who go to laws against other Christians in court suits will be damned just as much as these various kinds of sinners...) Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was:  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

– Per WP:CONSISTENCY with First Epistle of John, Second Epistle of John, Third Epistle of John, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, and Epistle of Jude, all of which include the author's name in the title. This is style is also more WP:PRECISE.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Epistle to the Romans → Epistle of Paul to the Romans
 * First Epistle to the Corinthians → First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
 * Second Epistle to the Corinthians → Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
 * Epistle to the Galatians → Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
 * Epistle to the Ephesians → Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
 * Epistle to the Philippians → Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
 * Epistle to the Colossians → Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
 * First Epistle to the Thessalonians → First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
 * Second Epistle to the Thessalonians → Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
 * First Epistle to Timothy → First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
 * Second Epistle to Timothy → Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
 * Epistle to Titus → Epistle of Paul to Titus
 * Epistle to Philemon → Epistle of Paul to Philemon
 * Epistle to the Hebrews → Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews
 * Oppose The current titles are already using the WP:COMMONNAME. The newly suggested titles would be good for redirects though. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. The consistency argument doesn't hold weight because the other epistles are general epistles and aren't able to be distinguished by recipients. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. Agree that the consistency argument is invalid per StAnselm above. The argument that the proposed titles are more precise is also invalid, that guideline reads in part titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that (my emphasis). The Epistles of John need the of John for disambiguation but in the case of the Epistles attributed to Paul no further disambiguation is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

It probably should be pointed out that Andrewa's argument that WP:PRECISE doesn't apply is not technically accurate for Romans and Ephesians, as two of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are otherwise known by the same names as Pauline epistles. Obviously they are far more obscure than the canonical epistles, so WP:COMMONNAME still trumps this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunn
There's some citations in the article to "Dunn", but the bibliography section has two works by done, so it's not clear which of his works are being references. Could anybody with access to the two volumes by Dunn on Romans take a look and maybe sort this out? Alephb (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Romans 1.18-32
Summarizing the main points here:

The article summarizes Rom. 1.18-32 as depicting God's judgement as a future event ("for which there will be wrath..."), but all translations use present tense and preterite (see all editions of the RSV, all editions of the NRSV, all editions of the KJV, all editions of the NIV - these use simple present or present progressive, which is also a present tense, and simple past) exclusively in 1.18-32. This is also true of all printings of the Koine Greek. The scholarly, independently-peer reviewed secondary source commentaries on these Bibles also base their commentary on present tense and simple past usage. So, "for which there will be" is either a bit of exegetical footwork in violation of neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) rules, original research (WP:NOR), or more charitably a bit of inattentive summary inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and not verifiable (WP:V) in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)

Romans 1.18-32 says that God's judgement has already occurred ("is revealed" and "gave them up"), but the article says that the judgement in 1.18-32 will occur in the future. This is an error. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 
 * - please remember to sign you posts with four tildes ( ~ ) - there's a box at the bottom of the page labeled "Sign your posts on talk pages", if you click on the box it will add your signature to your post.
 * - as to your point, it is open to interpretation (and don't forget we are dealing with translations from Koine Greek and translations vary) - KJV says "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men"; which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God is revealed whenever men are unrighteous - if men are unrighteous now, it will be revealed now; if they are unrighteous in the future, it will be revealed in the future.
 * - NIV says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people"; which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God is in the process of being revealed and those who are unrighteous will suffer the wrath.

Response: This is simple present tense. The conclusion you draw is not supported by it nor appropriate to a summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)


 * - so the article statement "have taken up ungodliness and wickedness for which there will be wrath from God" is correct, in alignment with both translations.
 * - it is open to interpretation, but Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so it is what the sources say that is important, and do the sources agree on one interpretation over another? - unless reliable scholarly sources can be found there is no need to change the wording of the article
 * - Important: please wait for other editors to comment and reach consensus before making further changes to the Epistle to the Romans article - see WP:CONSENSUS - Epinoia (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 No, I'm sorry. The Koine Greek here is also clear. God's wrath is presently revealed in 1.18. Then Paul frames is it as a future event in chapter 2. Check scholarly, peer-reviewed translations like the RSV, NRSV etc. The point these make, and which the sources cited in the first sentence make, is that Paul is quoting what Hellenistic Jews say about Gentiles in 1.18-32 before refuting the use of that kind of discourse starting in 2.1. The evidence for this in the Koine Greek is as strong as it gets: check the rising discourse in 1.18-32, alliteration, pronoun use, and most especially the switch to the vocative voice beginning in 2.1. I'm baffled that you would cite the NIV. It's not a scholarly translation but rather one that by its own admission requires its editors and translators to have come from a distinctly American evangelical background. Frankly, this speaks all the more strongly for making the change. The statement "for which there will be wrath from God" is untrue to the text. It should be "for which there is already," though I could live with "is." 


 * - citations to reliable scholarly works are required or it is original research WP:NOR - Epinoia (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I will be working here from Bibles published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, both not-for-profit peer reviewed presses that are divisions of the world’s preeminent research universities and each of which have been publishing Bibles for something like 400 years. New Revised Standard Version, edited by Michael Coogan, Edited by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, OUP, 5th edition 2018. This uses simple present tense “is revealed” and simple past tense “God gave them up.” All four previous editions of this scholarly Bible do the same. The same is true in all editions published by Cambridge University Press. The same is true in the RSV, all editions, all three years of copyright 1946, 1952, and 1971. The same is also true in NKJV editions, all copyright years, published by these presses. I’ve just check the Tyndale translation online and it too has simple present and simple past in these verses. And I checked my facsimilie edition of Martin Luther’s translation – one of my prized posessions – and it too has only simple present and a past tense (though in this case Luther landed on present perfect “has…occurred.”). If the question before us is “At what time does 1.18-32 frame God’s judgment?”, the answer must be already present or having already occurred. I see nothing in 1.18-32 in any translation that would support future tense. You point to present progressive in the NIV, but this too is a present tense, rather than a future tense, and Koine Greek has no such thing as present progressive in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/[[User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 19:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"...for which there will be wrath from God" is not an accurate summary because it places the wrath of God in the future, while translation and the Koine Greek itself place it in the present and past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 ] (User: Metanoia2019) 19:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - this is still original research (WP:NOR) based on primary sources (see WP:PSTS) - Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not original research. This is 500 years of independently peer-reviewed scholarly publishing, the very definition of reliable, published sources. Even the NIV, which is not a scholarly source, uses present progressive, which is a present tense. If you wish to change it to future tense, please provide some scholarly translations that justify this. Otherwise it is your own original research (WP:NOR), or that of whoever wrote it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 15:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - combining material from several sources to reach a conclusion is synthesis (see WP:SYNTH), which is still original research (see WP:NOR) - for the Wikipedia definitions of primary and secondary sources see WP:PSTS - Epinoia (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No. All scholarly sources indicate present and past tenses for this passage. You've done a bit of exegetical work to get it to say future tense (your words "could be taken to mean..."), but that is still original research (WP:NOR) based on seemingly no sources at all. Wikipedia is hardly the place for that. Again, if you have a scholarly source that uses a future tense verb in this passage, I'm willing to listen, but otherwise it's opinion and exegesis rather than neutral summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 18:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - I checked on this in the Wikipedia Help Desk and Bible translations are considered primary sources as religious scripture - so research based directly on bible translations is original research - you need references to reliable secondary sources to back up your claim - see WP:PSTS and WP:RS for Wikipedia definitions of sources - Epinoia (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No. I've cited a least a century's worth of Bible translations with commentary published by the world's oldest publishers of the Bible in English. If you would like I will list all the names of the editors and commentators of these Bibles as well as their university affiliations. I will do so also for the NIV you cite which also uses a present tense (present progressive in this case) and simple past. If you wish to change to a future tense, you will need references to reliable secondary sources to back up your claim. - see WP:PSTS and WP:RS Which are they, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Metanoia2019 (User: Metanoia2019) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - religious scriptures are primary sources per WP:PRIMARY note C: "Further examples of primary sources include...religious scripture" - this is Wikipedia's definition and this is what we must conform to for all biblical content on Wikipedia - also, as you are the one seeking the change to an established article, the burden is on you to provide references to reliable secondary sources WP:BURDEN - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - Note: a review of WP:NOR will show that I did not engage in original research - this is a Talk page, not an article, and on Talk pages there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge (see WP:TALK) - assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia (see WP:GOODFAITH) - mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable falls under Gaming the System (see WP:SANCTIONGAMING) - I wouldn't go so far as to accuse you of gaming the system, or WP:POINT or abuse of process in this instance, but I wanted to make you aware of the guidelines so that you did not inadvertantly fall into disruptive behavior in the future - a linked list of behavior guidelines can be found here: List of guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Each of the sources I cited are scholarly reference Bibles. Their commentary is secondary literature. Please do not keep moving the goal posts. You implied initially that you wanted primary sources, citing the NIV. I responded with a century's worth of primary sources published by scholarly, independently peer reviewed presses. (Note that such presses do not publish the NIV, but even so, there is the matter that the NIV uses a present tense and a simple past tense, which itself speaks the necessity of revising the article.) You then asked for secondary sources. Each of these Bibles contains extensive scholarly commentary in all of their editions. I will be happy to list them here again for you. You asked for reliable sources and I put it to you that independently, anonymous peer-review processes at these presses are the very definition of reliable sources. You then asked for some indication of how well-received these publications are. I don't have distribution figures for the NIV, KJV, RSV, NRSV etc but I don't see how it could be argued that these are not well-received.

This correction meets each of the goal posts you have set, fully consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. It is not my own research. Your argument here is not with me but with the hundreds of scholars, translators, commentators of all of the editions of the Bible listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/[[User: Metanoia2019 (User [[User: Metanoia2019 ]) 01:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have not moved the goalposts at all - I have consistently asked you to provide reliable secondary sources in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines - the Wikipedia definitions of reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, WP:PSTS, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - the bible, as religious scripture, counts as a primary source WP:PRIMARY and combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is synthesis WP:SYNTH which counts as original research WP:NOR - this is Wikipedia and standards may be different than in the academic world, but on Wikipedia, it is the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that take precedence - Epinoia (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you have moved the goalposts. You began with religious scripture yourself - the record clearly indicates this. You also speculated a bit "...which could be taken to mean that the wrath of God..." but Wikipedia articles may not speculate.

Again, the reliable secondary sources are the scholarly commentary on each of the many editions of the scholarly study Bibles published by scholarly publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC) 


 * - as already pointed out, this is a Talk page, not an article, and on Talk pages there is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge (see WP:TALK) - taking those commentaries and reaching a conclusion is synthesis WP:SYNTH and original research WP:NOR - what you need are books by a reputable biblical scholars that support your position - the guidelines for reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, WP:PSTS, and WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Epinoia (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have already done so. To be clear: the commentary on the New Revised Standard Version, such commentary by Michael Coogan, Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, OUP, 5th edition 2018, as well as the commentaries of all four previous editions of this scholarly Bible. You mustn't keep shifting your opinion on whether this is primary or secondary research. It's not mine. It's that of reputable scholars published by reputable presses.

As I have asked repeatedly, where did the future tense come from in the first place? Nothing supports it. You might as well be asking me for books by reputable scholars that say that the sky is blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC) </Del>


 * - commentaries printed with the translated text are part of the translation and count as part of the primary source - as no other editors have so far commented and there is no consensus (WP:CONS), to move forward there are four options: 1) leave the article in its original form; 2) post a request for comment (WP:RFC) and invite other editors to contribute to the discussion; 3) request a third opinion (WP:THIRD); 4) go through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process (WP:DR) - Epinoia (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>No. Commentaries are of course secondary sources. What is more, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. I see nothing that supports future tense but if you do, I'm willing to listen. I ask now again: who put God's judgement in the future tense here? What support do you wish to offer for it? — Preceding Metanoia </Del>


 * - as we are not going to agree on this, we must seek other means of resolution as outlined above - I am quite happy to abide by consensus of other editors or the results of a dispute resolution request - Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and verifiable (WP:V). This necessarily applies to summaries of content as well. Summarizing in the future tense is original research (WP:NOR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) </Del>

<Del>Entirely out of curiosity, have you any support for summarizing in the future tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) </Del>


 * - Let's wait and see what other editors have to say - Epinoia (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: this discussion has been heavily edited and the discussion history disrupted with posts deleted, edited and reordered - for the last clean version of the discussion history see diff - consensus has not yet been reached - Epinoia (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Quote from interleaved comment:
 * In English, the simple present is also called the present indefinite. There are linguists who claim that English does not have a future tense at all. Old English did not have a future tense, only present and past. Vestiges of this can be found in modern English constructions such as, "I go to the dentist tomorrow," or "I have an exam Wednesday," a usage called a present tense with future meaning. The construction "I have an exam" is the same for present: "I have an exam" (now), and future: "I have an exam" (Wednesday). Futurity is determined by the context. English future tenses are constructed from present tense elements. This is illustrated by other future tense constructions, such as the present progressive, "I am going fishing" – the construction is the same for the present: "I am going fishing" (now), and the future: "I am going fishing" (tomorrow). The intent, whether present or future, is determined by the context, not by the verb tense, as all the elements in the construction are present tense. The future tense entered English through the translation of Latin texts into Old English, as Latin has a future tense. English future tenses rely on modal verbs, such as will and shall, to modify the present tense verbs; will is from 'willen' meaning wish or desire; shall is from 'sceal,' meaning obligated. "I will arise" is the simple present or infinitive 'arise' modified by the modal verb 'will' to indicate futurity. In English, because of its use of indefinite present and continuous present, future actions are implied through the use of the present tense, rather like Augustine’s "a present time of future things." Similarly with statements of fact. To say, "The path is steep," doesn’t mean that the path is steep only at this moment, it implies continuity into the future; so to say in English, "The path is steep" is entirely consistent with "The path will be steep." Because of the English present indefinite, it is quite natural to take "The wrath of God is revealed" as also meaning, "The wrath of God will be revealed," especially as Christian cosmology progresses from past Creation to future Judgement, which gives a context of futurity. In English, with the present tense with future meaning and present indefinite, will or shall are not always necessary to indicate futurity; it is the context that determines futurity. If the wrath of God was already revealed in the past, the proper English tense would be present perfect, "The wrath of God has been revealed," but as no translations use this, the present indefinite is indicated. The NIV uses the present continuous, "The wrath of God is being revealed," so clearly there is no consensus among translators on the rendering of this passage. Every translation is an interpretation, not a transliteration. While Greek verb tenses may differ, we are dealing with English translations here and an English-speaking audience who are probably not familiar with koine Greek, so subtle distinctions based on Greek verbs don’t have much impact on English grammar and English usage. (Also, I believe, that in Early Christianity the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth was believed to be imminent ( Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15 ), whereas over time it came to be generally regarded as a future event (see Millennialism), so common usage and context puts the wrath of God in the future. And this futurity is found in Paul (in English translation), "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" ( Philippians 2:12 ), clearly meaning to work it out over time – another case of present tense with future meaning, as the English construction "work out your own salvation" is the same for present: "work out your own salvation" (now), and the future: "work out your own salvation" (before the Judgement). The context determines the futurity, not the verb tense.) I am not saying that I know more about how to render the passage than experienced translators, I just want to establish that, because of the contextual nature of English future verb tenses, taking the passage to mean, "The wrath of God will be revealed" is compatible with English grammar and English usage. - Epinoia (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You're conflating simple present and present progressive. When English speakers use a present tense construction to express futurity, they generally do so with present progressive (thus, not "I go to the dentist tomorrow" but "I am going to the dentist tomorrow.") The translators of the NIV did indeed land on the present progressive, but the NIV is not a scholarly translation - note that scholarly publishers of the Bible do not publish it - and Wikipedia cannot be governed by it alone. And more to the point, Koine Greek in fact does have a future tense and it is not used in Romans 1:18-32. Context determines a great deal, I agree, and it is in this sense notable that future tense constructions are in fact found in Romans 2. It really stands out and it's part of what leads scholars, translators (save the mostly American Evangelicals who put together the NIV), and commentators (again, save for largely American Evangelicals) to believe that Paul is summarizing the view of Hellenistic Jewish legalists in Rom 1.18-32 (paraphrased: we know that God is already judging them, God has given them over - Paul is citing Anaxagoras almost verbatim here, but that's a different matter) before offering a refutation of that view in Romans 2 (paraphrased: no, dear listener, God will judge in the future). I recognize that there is an element of exegesis to our discussion and I regret the way I approached it initially. Still, to the question of neutral, impartial summary of 1.18-32 in an online encyclopedia, I see nothing in the Greek or in scholarly translations in English that supports future tense. I gather whoever wrote this summary initially was working from the NIV but even then, changing the NIV's present progressive to future is (doubtless unintentional) exegesis rather than summary.

There's also the matter that at least 29 words in 1.18-32 occur nowhere else in Paul's writings and 49 words in 1.18-2:29, but I see reference to this in a footnote already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * – I don’t see how I could conflate them as they are quite different. "He walks home" is simple present. Present progressive/continuous incorporates the verb "be" with a present participle, as in, "He is walking home." Different constructions. – I didn’t say it was the most common usage, but present tense with future meaning is a valid construction in English. I mentioned it to give a bit of historical understanding of English future tenses and how and why they differ from Latin (and Greek). Phrases such as, "I go to church on Sunday," using the present tense with future meaning, are completely acceptable in English.  – I don’t know why would say that as over 100 scholars participated in the translation. But even if it is not "scholarly" in an academic sense, it qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia (see WP:RS), and it is the Wikipedia guidelines we are working with. Despite your evident disdain for American Evangelicals, the NIV translation was assisted by Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian scholars, so certainly a Protestant bible, but ecumenical. (I personally don’t have a preference for the NIV, I simply used it as an example of a variant translation).  – there is a great difference between what the bible actually says and what it is taken to mean. Look at the brothers of Jesus mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Jesus couldn’t have brothers because his father was God and his mother a perpetual virgin, so even though a literal translation of the Greek says brothers, it must mean cousins. And if we are going to stick to a literal translation of what the original text actually says, we have to throw out some Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, which is not explicitly developed in the New Testament. And if, as you say, in the passage in question Paul is summarizing Jewish legalists whom he later refutes, that is a major re-interpretation of the text, which is debatable, and is taking the text to mean something it does not actually say. So on the one hand you are interpreting the text and on the other insisting on a literal translation. To revise the article to reflect this interpretation would give undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) to a minor theory over the traditional mainstream interpretation. In the passage, Paul may have used the simple present in Greek, but English verb tenses are different. Using future tense to describe the passage is compatible with the sense of the passage, compatible with the context of Christian history, and compatible with English verb tenses and English usage. - Epinoia (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you mustn't change Paul's tenses as doing so would be inconsistent with neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) rules, original research (WP:NOR), or more charitably a bit of inattentive summary inconsistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and not verifiable (WP:V). No, the NIV is not a scholarly translation. It is a religious text rather than a scholarly one and you musn't cite per the Wikipedia guidelines; you are expected to understand and abide by these. Yes, this section is strictly for summary of the text and yes, changing present tense to future is going beyond what is in the text. Doing so would be theology rather than summary.

The judgment of God (1:18–32)
Summarizing the main points here:

Notable scholarly research and popular opinion are generally at odds here, notable scholars finding 1.18-32 representing not Paul's own view but his summary of rhetoric inimical to his mission, and popular opinion believing 1.18-32 to be his summary of his own view. (See for example: "Romans 1.18-32: Its Role in Developing the Argument" (Calvin Porter, New Testament Studies, Cambridge University Press, 1994) "Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27 (Roy Bowen Ward, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 263-284), and most famously J. C. O'Neill's commentary on Romans (Penguin, 1975 - a scholarly work that found a wide popular readership). It cannot be conclusively argued therefore that 1.18-32 is in Paul's voice, and so we need wording that reflects a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). "His summary" and "This summary" are proposed to accomodate both scholarly and popular opinion (though, it must be noted, even popular opinion is coming around on the topic - see works by Colby Martin, David Gushee etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanoia2019 (talk • contribs)

<Del>User: Metanoia2019 - you say that "He" is very likely inaccurate" - do you have any reliable sources to back that up? - I don't have access to Romans 1.18-32: Its Role in Developing the Argument by Calvin Porter - (I couldn't find any evidence that Porter is an acknowledged biblical scholar)</Del>

- as you are the one adding the content, the burden is on you to provide sources that clearly support the material as presented in the article (WP:BURDEN), otherwise it is original research (WP:NOR) - Epinoia (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>Calvin Porter is Nettie Sweeney and Hugh Th. Miller Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary. His 1994 article appears in the scholarly journal New Testament Studies, issue 40, pages 210-228. New Testament Studies is an international peer-reviewed periodical whose contributors include the leading New Testament scholars writing in the world today. It is published by Cambridge University Press, a not-for-profit press which unlike Zondervan etc. puts its journal publications through double-blind peer review before acceptance. Worth noting is that Cambridge University Press is one of the world's oldest publishers of the Bible in any language. I recommend the article to you strongly. I don't know of any scholar who has found a hole Porter's his argument - or that of those scholars who have made the same arguments cited in his references, all scholarly, peer-reviewed sources - but if you do, I'm all ears. Until then, we must agree on neutral wording that accommodates both the popular opinion that 1.18-32 represents Paul's own position and the scholarly read that identifies 1.18-32 as Paul's summary of discourse inimical his mission to the gentiles. "His summary" works well for this. Preceding comment added by (User: Metanoia2019) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)</Del>


 * - one article by a very minor scholar does not establish general acceptance by the scholarly community - Calvin L. Porter seems to be a very minor professor from a minor theological seminary quoted in a few places for his work on Codex Vaticanus and P75 - Cambridge Press notes that "Romans 1.18–32: Its Role in the Developing Arguement" has only been cited twice; harldy grounds for notability - WorldCat turned up a few books, but nothing significant; Google Scholar turned up a few minor articles - based on the information available, Porter's position does not seem to be widely accepted or supported by the scholary community - unless there is scholary consensus on this issue it will remain a minority view and not part of accepted scholarship - Epinoia (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>You're (1) moving the goal posts; (2) overlooking that New Testament Studies is *the* preeminent journal in the field, overseen by a Board of the finest scholars in the area; (3) overlooking all of the scholarly sources that Porter cites - the ideas are not his own that is but his article is a synthesis of research carried out by theologians in several countries over several decades, and (4) overlooking the sources cited in the first sentence as well as all the sources they cite. I point you also to "Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27 (Roy Bowen Ward, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 263-284), also a journal that uses a independent double-blind peer review process run by a not-for-profit university press, one of the finest in the world. This article too lists sources upon sources in its references, most famously J. C. O'Neill's 1975 commentary on Romans. You may not like that scholars acknowledge Romans 1.18-32 as epideictic speech but this does not change the truth. Wikipedia must be neutral and we need neutral wording that accommodates both scholarly research and popular opinion. "His summary" will suffice. I'd also welcome hearing why you think that Cambridge University Press and Harvard University Presses are "hardly grounds for notability," but that's a different matter.  — Preceding comment added by User: Metanoia2019) 15:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC) </Del>


 * - see WP:ACADEMIC for Wikipedia criteria for a notable academic - I didn't say that Cambridge University Press and Harvard University Presses were not notable, I said that having a work cited twice was not grounds for considering the work notable - but, on Wikipedia, notability cannot be inherited; being published by notable presses is immaterial to whether or not the work itself is notable - (you may wish to review Arguments to avoid on discussion pages) - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Question: your knowledge of Calvin L. Porter seems very in-depth - do you have a relationship with Calvin L. Porter? If so, please review the conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI - if there is no relationship, then I apologise for making the suggestion - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>I do not have a relationship with Calvin Porter, nor with Roy Ward, nor with any of the many folks they cite. You requested reliable sources and I put it to you that the finest scholarly journals published by the world's oldest university presses all of which use a double-blind peer review system are the very definition of reliable sources. — Preceding comment added by User: Metanoia2019 11:46, 22 September 2019 UTC</Del> <Del>::- thank you for responding so clearly and for not taking offense - I apologize again for making the suggestion - Epinoia (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)</Del>


 * Note: please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) - at the bottom of page is a notice, "Sign your posts on talk pages", if you click on the four tildes in the box it will automatically add your signature - I also advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines before making more edits - also, if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia it would be a good idea to create an account (see Why create an account?) - right now you are a single purpose account (see WP:SPA) and you might be interested in reading WP:POVPUSH and WP:EXPERTISE, as well as WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE to help you to make edits that conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - I see that two other editors have reverted your changes and you have reinstated them before consensus was reached on the Talk page - this is against WP:BRDD, which says "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version" - as no other editors have so far commented and there is no consensus (WP:CONS), to move forward there are four options: 1) leave the article in its original form; 2) post a request for comment (WP:RFC) and invite other editors to contribute to the discussion; 3) request a third opinion (WP:THIRD); 4) go through the Wikipedia dispute resolution process (WP:DR) - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

<Del>No, I'm sorry. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).</Del>


 * - as we are not going to agree on this, we must seek other means of resolution as outlined above - I am quite happy to abide by consensus of other editors or the results of a dispute resolution request - Epinoia (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Catholic Interpretation
I think the nuance of this is misleading. It would be more correct to say justification by faith is only valid so long as it is combined with subsequent obedient cooperation with The Holy Spirit, given that the issue of sequence is the theme of the next paragraph, which gives the Protestant interpretation for comparison. Reference to the pages on prevenient_grace and synergism would be appropriate.

As an example, Catholics (and Lutherans) believe that by baptized infants are saved by grace, yet they have neither obedient cooperation nor faith of their own.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)