Thursday, March 19, 2009

Healing and Romans

I had an operation on Saturday to insert a plate into my wrist. It went well, and I saw the cut for the first time today. Seems to be healing nicely so I had a new plaster fitted, a nice red one. As I'm on strong painkillers, thinking clearly for any length of time is very difficult.

However, in a brief moment of lucidity I was really struck by this remark from Kim Riddlebarger:
Our fathers in the faith clearly understood the importance of the Book of Romans and we would be foolish to ignore their wise counsel. Luther thought understanding Romans so important to a healthy Christian life that he thought it should be memorized by every Christian. He also stated that Romans cannot be studied enough or too thoroughly.

John Calvin thought that the Book of Romans was the key to understanding the whole of Scripture, since in this epistle Paul quotes more verses from the Old Testament than any other book of the New Testament. If we understand the Book Romans, says Calvin, we will be able to see the big picture of the redemptive drama so that we can make sense of details and understand the more obscure passages of the Bible.


mammo7 said...

I had a plate inserted in my wrist about 5 years ago. It was necessary to fuse the wrist, due to arthritis damage. So I can fully relate - I was on strong painkillers, too. I'm amazed that you can think as lucidly as you obviously did in your last two posts!

Nick said...

I know I will take flak for this, but I think Romans is one of the most mis-read books by Protestants.

It is an extremely important Epistle, but it is grossly oversimplified reading it through a Sola Fide lens. For example, Romans 2 is virtually brushed off because it doesn't fit a Sola Fide reading where Paul is thought (by Protestants) to building up a legal case against man in Rom 1-3 and then finding a way out in Romans 4.
Romans 2 doesn't fit this scheme, and it's amazing how Protestant books dealing with justification skim over Rom 2:1-3:8.