Was Phoebe a deacon? The NIV/NLT translators seem to think deacon: > **Romans 16:1 (NIV)** I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a **deacon** of the church in Cenchreae. Furthermore, when I read the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I see that a deacon should clearly be a man: > **1 Timothy 3:8–12 (ESV)** Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. **Their wives** likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the **husband of one wife**, managing their children and their own households well. Most other translations call Phoebe a "servant" instead of "deacon", however the greek word for deacon in both passages is διάκονος . I'm not sure what to make of this.

Romans 6:23 states: 'For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.' I've understood this is a difficult concept since while some believe it to mean a purely physical death (which we are redeemed from during the end times in our resurrection) others seem to believe that this may simply be a *spiritual* death, entailing disconnection from God? Assuming the physical death is an aspect of this death, how come those who are raptured during the end times are not condemned to death before rising again if the wage of sin is death?

How did medieval Bible commentator [Hugh of Saint-Cher](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_of_Saint-Cher) translate Romans 3:23? That is, particularly, what Latin did he use for "hamartia?" Did he alter the translation from Jerome's Vulgate?

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

I have been a member of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod for most of my life. My problem is that now, as a middle-aged man, and for the last five years, I have realized that I am a gay man. I am not thrilled about this and I wish it was not the case. I also have not done anything in furtherance of it either. I believe the Bible condemns it as sin. However, in being a member of a conservative denomination such as mine, I have nowhere to turn for help. I live in daily fear of God's wrath and worry that I'm in danger of being "given up" as mentioned in Roman's 1:24. I have a great pastor but I don't feel like I can come talk to him about this because I don't know what would happen. Thus, I am reluctant to ring a bell that can't be unrung. Any references to literature, etc. Would be most appreciated.

The Bible says > It is by grace that you are saved, by the means of faith. And it does not come from you, it is the gift of God’. (Eph 2:8). > So faith comes from what we hear, and what we hear comes from the word of Christ.’ (Rom 10:17). According to the passages of the Bible quoted (Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 10:17), faith and grace are necessary for salvation. However, these passages also emphasize the importance of hearing the word of Christ. In this context, is it possible to be saved without having heard of Jesus? Can we be saved without having heard of Jesus?

Do all Christians believe in predestination? If not, for those who don't, how do they explain Romans 9:14 - 9:24? > 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. > > 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. The passage says some are "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction," and others are "vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory..." Also when it says "He hardens whom he desires," the implication is that when a person's heart becomes hardened, it is hardened by God in which case they did not do so of their free will. Both of these support the idea of predestination (the former more than the latter) and I want to know how a Christian who doesn't believe in predestination (or one who somehow harmonizes predestination and free will) would interpret this passage, particularly the things I mentioned.

Having read an article in the British November 2024 *Evangelical Times* newspaper on this question, I was heartily in agreement with it till halfway through, thus giving rise to my question. Very briefly, the writer clearly showed from scripture that we are all doomed to fall under God’s judgment unless our union with Adam changes to union with Christ (Romans 5:14). But then I was troubled to read an interpretation of that chapter ***claiming we are “saved through the obedience of Christ.”*** The writer subscribes to the *Westminster Confession of Faith* that this was Christ perfectly keeping the Law on our behalf. (XIX.5 & 6) Yet the writer then admitted that: > [Many Christians] “still find the pull of legalism to be powerful… Is > my Christian living up to standard? Am I doing well enough to remain > on track for heaven?” *Evangelical Times*, article [‘Joined to the wrong man’](https://www.evangelical-times.org/joined-to-the-wrong-man/) p.10, Vol. 58 No.11 He says such questions are inapplicable as it is who we are united to that determines eternal destinies – and that is true – but my question is, What ***enables*** anyone to be transferred from being united to Adam to Christ? (I am not asking *whether* we are joined to Adam - this question is for those in the Reformed Protestant category, for whom that is a given.) I thought Romans chapter 5 spoke of our “being justified ***by his blood***… reconciled ***by the death of his Son***… saved ***by his life***” (vs. 9-10). When it speaks of obedience, it is Christ having been ***“obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”***, surely? **Is there anywhere in the entire Bible that states we have union with Christ through his obedience to the Law?** Yet if people believe that, is it no wonder they get pulled into legalistic doubts?

Considering that in the Jewish mindset at the time of Jesus, as we learn from Paul in Romans 9:6-13, the Jews thought that they were "the children of promise" descended from Isaac (not Ishmael) and "God's elect" descended from Jacob (thus Paul citing God's election of Jacob over Esau), **why then, in John 8, the Judeans refer to themselves as "children of Abraham" rather than the "children of Jacob" or something else?** I understand that Paul used Abraham as a model of faith, but faith was not the topic in John 8:30-59. Why did Jesus's interlocutors refer to themselves as "children of Abraham"? Did they implicitly acknowledge that the *Idumeans* (roughly [the leftover of the Edomites in the Hellenistic period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edom#Hellenistic_period) , descendants of Esau) and the *inhabitants of the Nabataean Kingdom* (descendants of Ishmael [according to Josephus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmaelites#Josephus '_Antiquities)) were their brothers too, two neighboring peoples in the South that they looked down on? Wouldn't it be more natural that in the discussion of freedom they wanted to emphasize to Jesus of their being the *children of promise* and of their *election* over Esau? Or to take it one step further, since they were from the Jerusalem area, maybe they should have called themselves "**children of Judah**" whose ancestors may have stayed there, not ever been "enslaved" (being exiled to Assyria / Babylon)?

We see St Paul telling the faithful in Romans 11:24 (NRSVCE): > For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. In terms of Botany, it is usually the refined plant's shoot that gets grafted on the wild plant (which is physically sturdy) so that it may grow up as healthy branch of the refined plant. For instance, shoot of rose-plant of big yellow-colored flower grafted on wild rose which otherwise produces white -colored small flowers, will grow up to produce yellow flowers. Was the method of grafting adopted in Biblical times different ? Or, was it that St Paul was not aware of the right method of grafting ? Or, was it possible that he wanted to bring home to the Romans a great spiritual truth at the cost of factual accuracy in day-to-day horticultural knowledge ? My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, does St Paul compromise his knowledge of horticulture in Romans 11:24 ?

In Romans 13:3, the scriptures state that the authorities hold no terror for those who do right. Considering all the martyrs who have been persecuted for doing right, then how can this scripture be true in every situation?

> **18** For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in > unrighteousness; > **19** Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. > **20** For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even > his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: I had this discussion in small group about how everyone undoubtedly knows who God is through creation (verse 20). But when "they are without excuse" does that imply that those who have not heard the gospel, but know that there is God, through creation, can be saved? The questions arose amongst the group on whether or not people in this situation can be saved without hearing the gospel? Or are they presented with the gospel in a different way (not ways of spreading the word)? Or is there something wrong/missing? A friend of mine did quote a passage from the book "Radical" by David Platt that when we ask the question about how people in 3rd world countries can be saved if they were never given the chance to hear about the gospel. Platt tells us that the problems lies within the question itself, that by asking it assumes that these 3rd world country people who have never heard of the gospel are innocent, when we are all sinful in nature. But going back to my original question, referencing verse 20, are we all "without excuse" even if we have not heard about the gospel? **Is there another way the gospel can be presented?**

From my understanding of dispensationalism , at some point in the future, I believe either prior to or just after the rapture, the temple on Moriah will need to be rebuilt. However, presumably, the reason for rebuilding the temple would be to resume the temple sacrifices that were going on there until the Romans destroyed it. This motivation seems even more likely (to me), given the imagery of the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40-48 , where animal sacrifices are taking place. But, if, as Paul seems to be saying below that all Israel will be saved, then what would the motivation be to rebuild a temple, given "sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary" (Hebrews 10:1-18 ) ? Romans 11:25-26a > I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and > sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a > hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, > and in this way all Israel will be saved. How do adherents of dispensationalism explain this? Where is my confusion?

Paul Says He Is Of "The Stock Of Israel, Of The Tribe Of Benjamin, An Hebrew Of The Hebrews", Why Does He Also Call Himself A "Jew"/G2453? Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of “”the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews””; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Rom 11:1“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of ""Benjamin"" Acts 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew/G2453 of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. 40And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, **he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue**, saying I am looking for a specific verse, you should know this..

How is was this verse understood by the early reformers, such as Luther or Calvin? > Romans 5:20-21 NIV > > The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.

Can someone give a summary of how to read Romans 1-4 in "[Beyond Justification: Liberating Paul's Gospel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/205122128-beyond-justification) "? From a [podcast](https://wipfandstock.com/blog/2024/03/05/douglas-a-campbell-and-jon-depue-liberating-pauls-gospel-from-justification-theory/) , I got the idea that Paul actually starts with a Socratic argument, rather than plainly stating what he believes and how things work. I'm not sure if I properly understood it though. According to the authors of the book, Romans 1-4 is the basis for "Justification Theory", an Atonement Theory often in the form of Penal Substitution. But 90% of what Paul wrote, "the gospel" as laid out by Paul in the rest of his corpus, doesn't work like that, namely: your faith in Christ is a sign that you are elected and thus saved and equipped to do good works. Perhaps I got that part wrong too, feel free to correct me.

Paul says in Romans 9:7-8 >**7** and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” **8** This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. And Galatians 3:16 says >Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. But if the promise to Abraham and his offspring was for Christ or us as believers, why was circumcision, if it was the sign of the covenant, given to Abraham’s physical offspring, since they’re not part of the Abrahamic covenant? My best guess right now is that the promise in Genesis 12 has some double-fulfillment features going on, like 2 Samuel 7 and Isaiah 7. As an alternative to a direct answer, links to helpful related articles or books would also be appreciated.

I've encountered discussions, such as the one linked [here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/107665/66156) , where certain Christians assert that atheists inherently acknowledge God's existence, often relying on certain interpretations of Romans 1:18-25. I'm keen to explore this interpretation further, examining its prevalence among Christians and investigating alternative exegeses that might support divergent perspectives. Are there theological or philosophical arguments within Christianity that present nuanced readings of Romans chapter 1, challenging the blanket assertion that all atheists, deep down, possess an inherent awareness of God's existence? --- The following are quotes from different sources presenting the viewpoint I'm calling into question: >*Believe No One Who Calls Himself an Atheist* > > **If what Paul says in Romans 1 is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist**. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three fronts. > > First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man. [...] > > (Source: [Why There’s No Such Thing as an Atheist](https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-an-atheist/)) > Many people who say they are atheists will say those who believe in God are stupid, or foolish. Ironically, Scripture says they are the fools. Professing to be wise they became fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Their foolish hearts were darkened. Indeed, Psalm 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”” > > **So, when you speak to someone who says he’s an atheist, he is 1) lying, and 2) a fool. He is like a person who says he doesn’t believe in gravity. He sees how it works, he experiences its effects, but denies it exists. Truly, such a person is a fool.** > > How do we as Christians answer the atheist? **I have come to the conclusion that we simply tell them that they really do believe that God exists, because the Bible says they do**. **Even though they may deny it, they know in their heart that they do believe it**. In other words, there really are no atheists. We tell them that they are suppressing this truth in unrighteousness, just as Scripture says. They may call you names, mock you, and hate you, all because you are telling them the truth. Most importantly, we give them the gospel. We should never think we are better, because God tells us “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11) May the Lord grant the atheists we meet the same grace He has given us. > > (Source: [There Are No Atheists](https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/there-are-no-atheists)) > *There really are no atheists defense* > > **This is the argument that all true atheists are at heart lying so that they may live in a way that is contrary to God's commands (as seen in particular interpretations of Romans 1:18-25)**. Critics note that there are atheists who are not lying and are not using their atheism as an escape to sin. Proponents note, however, that they could just as easily still be lying, perhaps not to others anymore but themselves (i.e. loving the wrong woman argument). Some have claimed this argument, however, fails to account for Stephen Maitzen's point on the demographics of theism. If all atheists are liars, why are people in some societies so much more likely to lie than in others? Finally, some have also claimed this argument fails to account for Jason Marsh's point on natural nonbelief in early humans. Since there was quite plausibly such a thing as natural nonbelief in early humans, then it does not make much sense to say that said nonbelief is self-deceptive. That is because natural nonbelief entails nonresistant nonbelief. > > (Source: [Argument from nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief#There_really_are_no_atheists_defense))

Many references indicate that Paul is quoting Psalm 19:4 when he writes in Romans 10:18 “Their voice … “ (Strong’s 5353). However, the Hebrew noun in Psalm 19:4 (Strong’s 6957) seems to always be translated “line”. Is Paul indicating a line of reasoning, or proof? Or is there history there that is not readily indicated to the lay reader? Do most scholars attribute Paul’s quote to Psalm 19:4?

Help me understand Romans 14:23. As we know as Christians, we tend to disagree on interpretations which leads to sometimes uncertainty. For example, say there’s something you you’ve always done that you’ve never believed was wrong/sinful. Let’s say… using tampons for example. And then someone tells you it’s wrong and uses a vague scripture to back it up. So you start to question it and wonder if it’s actually sinful to use or not. To me this sounds like doubt but I feel like it’s unfair to say I’m in sin since I’m not 100% sure it’s a sin, I’m just trying to do my due diligence… What are y’all’s thoughts?