Talk:Epistle to the Romans/Archive 1

Current dispute
Could everyone start using the talk page instead of reverting for a little while? Maybe we could hash out some of the differences here. Gamaliel 09:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The gospel transforms believers
I suggest the following for the "The gospel transforms believers" section:


 * In Romans 7:1, we see that humans are under the law while we live; however, Jesus' death on the cross makes believers dead to the law (Romans 7:4). In chapter 12 through the first part of chapter 15, Paul outlines how the gospel transforms us and the behaviour that results from such a transformation. He goes on to tell us how we should live, in these passages: not under the law, but under the grace of God. If we live by what the Bible says and love everyone, study the scriptures (and share them with others), we are not going to need to sin. As Paul says in Romans 13:10, "love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of law". This should not be taken that Paul is telling us that love is all that matters; without first accepting Christ's gift (Romans 8:1, Romans 5:1), we are still under the bondage of sin (Romans 5:12-17) and cannot experience that love.

The current section is very shallow, to say the least, and the way it was previously didn't even make any sense (the concluding verses section was there until I moved it). I don't feel that I need to defend the paragraph above since I'm simply quoting what Paul himself wrote.Joshuagross 16:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In general, I'm not sure that first person plural is the proper tense for this article. "We see," " we live," "we are"--all of these constructions are more exhortive than encyclopedic.


 * Further, any substantive exegesis of Paul's message will be POV; Christians disagree as to the proper interpetation of Romans. For example, you believe that Romans 12 through Romans 15 "oulines how the gospel transforms us and the behavior that results from such a transformation."  Such an interpretation, while understandable, is not the only possible one.  For example, others would see those chapters as instead containing instructions on how to live.  Such differences in interpretation go to the heart of disputes between Catholics and Orthodox on the one hand and Reformed Protestants on the other on the nature of justification.


 * Rather than stir up a hornet's nest of what the "right" interpretation of any given passage is, I believe the more encyclopedic option is to briefly summarize Paul's statements and leave the interpretation to the reader.--Jbull 04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You make an excellent point about the tense. Refarding the interpretations, however, there is no reason we can't include some common interpretations, provided they are properly sourced and not presented as the only possible interpretation. Gamaliel 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So long as every editor's personal interpretation is given space and clearly labeled as POV, your suggestion is fine with me.--Jbull 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me... I agree about the tense and not presenting it as the only POV. I'll work on it. Joshuagross 06:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I modified the tense and cleaned it up a bit more. How should the POV be labeled? The others aren't clearly labeled as POV either, so either all of them should be, or none.Joshuagross 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
User:CheeseDreams added the NPOV disclaimer to this article, which says "Please see its talk page." So what elements are disputed? – Quadell (talk) (help)  01:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I find it a bit disturbing that the entire "history" section only quotes the bible. What kind of scholarship is this?
 * It does not only quote the Bible. It is lacking references for the content (though accurate they are) - the "Bible quotes" are references to where in the letter and in the rest of the NT certain people or events are referenced. Str1977 (smile back) 19:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

General Characterisation
The General Characterisation seems a random section, especially the stuff about the main messages of Romans being Foreskin and diet. Could somebody do a little better? 80.42.112.73 15:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: Catholic View and Bias
After reading the section on Protestant and Catholic interpretations, it seems that the Catholic view is not presented in a balanced way. In the Protestant section, their interpretation is presented first, followed by a "Critique" section in which their view is criticised and then that criticism is "refuted". In the Catholic "Critique" section, their view is criticised and then that criticism is supported with two further paragraphs of Bible quotation. I have to say, this article reads a bit like Evangelical propaganda. I have to agree with the first comment on this page--there is no scholarship here, only biblical pericopes thrown about like hand grenades. InFairness 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a scholar and a christian yet I see no NPOV problem....actually the real problem I see is that its not obvious from the article precisely what the difference between the catholic and protestant views are....This needs to be spelled out better before we can even talk about which pov the article currently favours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.169.59 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an important question I am sure and can often mean the difference, for an individual christian in the pews, between a fearful unhappy person who feels that acceptance is performance based and that they are never quite good enough (who will in turn be critical and unaccepting of others); an overconfident, smug person who feels that no matter how badly they treat others forgiveness is always available; and a confident well balanced person who feels accepted despite their failings and acts in an accepting and forgiving way towards others. The faith/works question in this article, however, is presented in petty, simplistic terms and smacks of caricature. Ultimately these trivialised arguments tell us very little about the letter to the Romans--Sineaste (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

History, first paragraph
I am having trouble making sense of the first paragraph of the "History" section.

"the expulsion of many Jews from Rome because of Christian disturbances around AD 49." Ok, there were disturbances in Rome involving Christians, so the Roman authorities, who regarded Christians as a kind of Jew, expelled all Jews.

".. Nero, allowed the Jews back into Rome." Ok, they had been behaving and so were allowed back. I assume that this included the Christians.

"... Gentile Romans now had a reason to hate Jews .., with an easy theological rationalization that Jews were no longer God's people." This is what makes no sense to me. The expulsion might give non-Christian Jews a reason to dislike Christians. But why should the return make anyone hate Jews?

My guess is that my problem is connected with terminology. In the eyes of Claudius, Christians were a kind of Jew. I cannot guess what is meant by "Gentile Romans" - at that date most Romans were pagan, so "Gentile" might mean pagan, or it might mean Christian.

Also, the footnote references seem to be wrongly numbered, the little 2 leads to _note-1, etc. Maproom (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. This assertion is unsubstiantiated and illogical and should be removed. The question of the jewish expulsion from Rome, however, is very relevant to the purpose and historical situation of Romans and this could be expanded further. --Sineaste (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My complaint is not that the assertion is unsubstantiated (thought it may well be for all I know), but that it makes no sense. Here is my latest guess as to what it is trying to say: "After disturbances involving Christians, Claudius expelled Christians and Jews from Rome. On his death, Nero let the Jews, but not the Christians, return. This marked the beginning of a permanent rift between Christians and Jews." But I have no expertise in this field, I am just trying to make sense of an incoherent paragraph. I wish someone who knows this stuff would sort it out. Maproom (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Coldfire has now modified this section so that it makes sense. Thank you, Coldfire. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Critique - Protestant view
This says something to the effect that Protestants would say doing good works render faith useless! That's a completely ridiculous view, in my opinion, and more importantly, not something I've heard any educated protestant say. --NZUlysses (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Often cited is the proposed conflict with the Epistle of James which expressly declares that good works are required in addition to faith for salvation. There is not even any conflict here (not that the fact that some people claim there is shouldn't be cited). Romans is states that works of the law won't justify men before God because no one keeps the whole law (Romans 3:20). Without faith there is no justification because no one is righteous (Romans 3:10, John 3:18). James states plainly that works justify a man with faith (James 1:21-27 & 2: 14-26), not men under the Law (which is what Paul is talking about in Romans). So, while this fact of dispute definitely needs to be in there, it needs to be worded correctly. Perhaps just add a notice that the criticism has been met with an answer by Christians. (ApostleJoe (talk)


 * I have strong misgivings about painting the faith-vs-works issue as a Catholic/Protestant divide at all. Protestants still debate among themselves how both faith and works are part of justification. I can't speak for Catholics but I would imagine there's disagreement among them as well. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed a link to the article "Romans Road", which apparently no longer exists and simply redirects to this article. I think there's an NPOV issue in that the "Protestant Interpretation" is never actually described, just talked about and then critiqued at length. AdamBradley (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bible quotations
Just wondering if there is any policy for using a particular translation for bible quotes. I was reading the article and noticed that quotes are taken from the King James Authorized version. Are other contemporary (and more accurate) translations a possibility or at least a reference after the quote to the translation used.

Most translations are copywrited so they usually cannot be used in a publication that is sold for profit or used at all except for fair use, unless there is prior written permission. But I think it is quite biased to say that the KJV is NOT accurate. It's language is outdated but the MS may be more accurate than those that underlay the contemporary translations such as the NASB or NIV which use the Alexandrian Critical Text. You can learn about the manuscript debate on Wikipedia, but I prefer the Byzantine Majority Text myself.


 * My quotations are my own translation. I don't have a problem with the KJV, it is as precise as any translation I know, but it does suffer here and there from having NOT had access to manuscripts that came available after it was published. A Georgian (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Way too long
That whole Exegesis section should be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a storehouse of critical interpretations of religous texts. --Rajah (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've tried to gently direct the editor in question (User talk:A Georgian), but there has been no fixing of his/her contributions. So it should be deleted, both here and in other New Testament articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it does need to be taken out. I thought I had got it out of all the NT articles, but apparently I missed some. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have done this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NPP
The introduction favors the New Perspective on Paul by NT Wright and Sanders etc. This is not the concensus of the evangelical or secular community. I would cut out the nt wright quote from the title paragraph 206.155.48.254 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons you gave for cutting it out seem to be primarily that you don't like it. That's hardly a good reason for cutting a quote by a leading scholar. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Many scholars have published books this year debating the NPP. Whether it is right or wrong doesnt belong in this article. WP:UNDO this must follow wikipedia's undue weight rule 206.155.48.254 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro doesn't say whether it's right or wrong, it simply puts it out there. And NT Wright is hardly the type of person whose views would fall under "undue weight" in an article on Romans. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An edit may have been made since the initial comment, but at this time Jos. Fitzmyer's quote precedes Wright's. Fitzmyer is not a NPP advocate. And, honestly, there is nothing in Wright's quote against which traditionalists should object - at least, nothing particular to the NPP. Lastly, it could probably be sufficiently demonstrated now that a large enough consensus exists, especially in the "secular community," to warrant NPP data in this article.--LTDahn (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as I can see, the only problem is that quotation itself is quite lengthy and equals about one-half of the entire introduction. Could we pare it down and cover it in more depth later in the article? JodyBtalk 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased? Neutrality?
Please could someone (preferably an expert on this) modify this and balance out the article. E.g the quote from Joseph Fitzmyer is unnessesary. He is just one man! Peoples' various opinions should be removed by an expert who knows what they are removing. This article is also very unbalanced and seems to have been written by someone who pulls the wool over our eyes.......... --Eddabed (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC) tense refers to time (past, present,etc.)--person and number are the categories with which you disagree. Lizbyffurroc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizbyffurroc (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Links
Is " * An Invitation to Accept Christ as your Savior. " an appropriate link for this article? A Georgian (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all, nor for any other article. I've removed it. Thanks for making note of it :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone of Introduction
The poetic formulation of the quote employed in the introduction is severely out of place in this encylopedic article. Both the metaphor and the use of 'we' are problematic. Can someone second to rewrite this? Audioweevil 05:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It it way out in left field as far as reference writing goes. It reads like a pamphlet one might have sent to their mailbox. Not wiki-like at all. (Drunktrumpet (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

I have another issue with the introduction: the statement at the end of the second paragraph makes no sense to me as it stands: "In Romans 9–11 Paul, talks about how the nation of Israel has been cast away, and the conditions under which Israel will be God's chosen nation again: when the Body of Christ (believers in Christ's payment for sin) stops being faithful (11:19–22)." A Georgian (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Romans Road
I think there is probably a case for deleting the stuff about the "Romans Road". However, in case this is a well-known concept, I have moved it here to give others the opportunity for editing. Deb 19:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned, and maybe linked to another stub article. 206.155.48.254 (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would make sense for a Romans Road article to be created. SuperMoonMan (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A separate Romans Road article clearly should be started. It makes little sense to be here. The history of the tool including it's origination, who has championed it's use, and notable people who have been impacted by it should be included. Without sounding too conspiratorial placing it here seems a shallow attempt to purposefully stifle it's expression. Currently Roman's Road redirects here and it really doesn't make sense to. 70.242.228.188 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Romans 3.28
Luther's translation of Romans 3.28 could be included here. It is difficult to say which article it should be in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.148.112 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about that, but it sounds interesting. Do you have sources talking about it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 15:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Luther. The paragraph entitled "Translation of the Bible" is what I am referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.16.149 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See Luther Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.16.149 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added the paragraph from Luther Bible to this page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

longest epistle?
the first paragraph of the article calls Romans 'by far the longest Pauline Epistle.' Surely this is incorrect - 1 Corinthians has the same number of chapters, and according to http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html, more verses.131.111.184.8 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Scholarship Rhetoric in the Style Section
Not sure if this belongs here:

It seems that the sole purpose of including this passage is to argue against the need for scholarship on the book of Romans. Since the goal of this section is to provide information about the style of the book, I think this is unhelpful, but I don't want to make the change myself since I'm not familiar with the editing of this article.

Frogitts (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and errors.
The are several sections not written from a neutral POV. One point of focus, in section "The Church in Rome": "Jews were expelled from Rome because of Christian disturbances around AD 49 by the edict of Claudius." Claudius expelled Jews because of Chrestus, who should not be confused with Christ (see wiki on Claudius). Christians as a distinct religious sect were still decades away so it's not historically accurate to discuss Christians in Rome at this time. Basically, this section (and others) have a timeline problem. Citing the bible itself as evidence for these claims is - it should go without saying - problematic. Citing works re: the historic spread of christianity in the Mediterranean would be one way to address the factual errors/non-neutral POV.Tangverse (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)