Protestn't

Here's how you respond:

[...]

Jesus did not qualify his promises with any conditions. These three promises, at least explicitly, did not depend, for instance, on anyone's commitment to him. He did not say, 'blessed are the poor who follow me'; nor 'blessed are those followers of mine who weep and mourn now'; nor did he say 'blessed are those followers of mine who are hungry now'. The promises came with no strings attached. The promises were unconditioned by any reference to Jesus himself. They also came without such qualifications as: 'Blessed are the poor who are always faithful to God. Blessed are those who weep now because they suffer for keeping the divine commandments. Blessed are those who remain hungry because they will not kill others to have more food.' The poor, the sorrowing, and the hungry have no claim on God, or at least no strict claim. God's loving mercy will be extended to them, even though they do not deserve, or do not strictly deserve, such gracious help. Some parables carry the same message: for instance, those of the Father's Love (Luke 15:11-32), the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:23-35), and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:10-14). In their different ways, the prodigal son, the servant, and the tax collector are greatly in need, but they have no right to receive the help that will come their way. Thus the first three beatitudes common to Matthew and Luke focus on people who are not said to be virtuous and deserving. They are simply in need and God will help and vindicate them. They are deprived and destitute, and only God will come to their aid. Jesus assures those in great distress that God intends to bring to an end the present state of things. The good news expressed in these first three beatitudes specifies wonderfully what Jesus means by saying elsewhere that 'the poor are brought the good news' (Matthew 11:5).

and l feel like it has made the text more cohesive

Some examples:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice (NIV: wickedness) of those who by their injustice suppress the truth." Romans 1.18.

"They were filled with every kind of injustice (NIV: wickedness), evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." Romans 1.29.

"But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God (NIV: 'if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly'), what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?" - Romans 3:5-6 - the NRSV

The impression I get from the NIV, shaped by much evangelical teaching, is that 'righteousness' is an individual quality first and foremost - yes, it affects other people who become victims of it, but the picture painted feels like the problem is that every single individual is unrighteous and does things that are Bad.

Romans 3.5-6, then, seems to suggest that our unrighteousness only serves to highlight just how much more perfect and beautiful and morally spotless God is compared to us, and hence God is justified to inflict wrath because he is so much better than us.

On the other hand, the NRSVUE (and tbf the 3: 5-6 changes are also present in the NRSV) I think instead by using injustice suggests that we have a collective problem. God's wrath is a response to injustice which must be amended, and the vice list of Romans 1.29 is not just a pious killjoy collection of things to avoid but all sins that flow directly from injustice.

Romans 3.5-6 instead seems to be saying 'the fact that God is willing to deal with this injustice via wrath and restore right relationships demonstrates God's justice' - essentially, in the same way that Green Goblin's injustice 'confirms' Spiderman's justice by being his foil and adversary. So Paul seems to be saying 'We see God's justice demonstrated in his response to injustice - it would be stupid then to say God is unjust to judge us. How could he ever fix the world without some kind of judgment' Rather than suggesting that because God is perfectly morally good, he can freely destroy all who are morally impure at will.

i think this also foreshadows Romans 6.1, where Paul asks rhetorically 'shall we keep on sinning, so that grace may abound?' No, because in Romans sin is injustice. Injustice is a broken relationship, whether between individuals or on a societal level, and the effect of grace is to heal that relationship, not paper over it. Continuing to perpetuate injustice in order to make grace abound is like deliberately breaking your arm over and over again for more medicine.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. Thank you.

Heck I think most High Protestants have some sort of doctrine of the Real Presence - Anglicans sure do at least.

preserving the tag because oooooooooo boyyy it is both correct and important. saying "nobody really believes that" makes it sound -- intentionally or not -- like you think it's a stupid thing to believe and everyone with that sincere belief is either stupid or self-deceptive. so maybe don't be an asshole! if you sincerely think that a piece of theological doctrine is less relevant or less literally interpreted than it used to be in the same faith ... say that instead!!

Saint Bede the Venerable

Doctor of the Church

672/673-735

Feast Day: May 25 (New), May 27 (Trad)

Patronage: English writers, historians, Jarrow, St. Bede college and university

Saint Bede was a Benedictine monk in Britain. He was the greatest scholar, author, and teacher of his time, deeply versed in the sciences and history, and known as the “Father of English History”. As a linguist and translator, he brought the works of the Latin and Greek writings of the early church fathers to the English, which contributed significantly to English Christianity. St. Bede was the first to date events anno domin (AD). He’s called Venerable to acknowledge his wisdom and learning.