Add new comment

hamilton | Tue, 06/05/2012 - 20:43 | Permalink

I am sorry, but I can not bring myself to agree with your logic. Romans 1:16 shows where Christ died for all; first for the Jews then for the Gentiles.  And I believe that The Romans Road is a great way to present that fact.  But your argument to debunk this presentation of the gospel seems to negate that fact.  Also in your article I see where you make the argument that Romans was written for the Jews and Gentiles of early times.  I agree that when Paul’s letters were written that they were written for the people of that time, however, does that limit them to where they aren’t relevant to today’s audience?  If the fact that any of the Bible was written to only the original audience and does not relate to today’s audience then what’s the point of reading it?  If one part was for them (original audience) and the other for us (current audience) then that would make the Bible unreliable.  Who are we (sinners) to determine was is and isn’t right about God’s word?  Should we take ALL of it literal?  I know that there are some parts that can’t be taken literal.  )i.e., Songs of Solomon 1:15.  Her eyes aren’t really doves.)  But we ALL have sinned, the ONLY way to Heaven is through Christ, God does love THE WORLD, and THE WORLD was flooded.  When we decide to say that some parts are relevant for us and some are not, we consequently decide that the Bible can not believed wholly.  So for you to say that The Roman Roads is irrelevant because of the fact that they were not written for us is to say that we have no hope because we can’t trust that part of the Bible.

On the flip side; I believe that we as evangelist and preachers of the gospel should be living it out loud and that we should be the loudest voice out there.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.