The Most Abused & Misused Verses in the Bible (Pt. 3)

Welcome to Truology, where we study Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. We do critiques on scholars, politics. We look into events in both classical and modern-day issues. We do interviews, debates, and much more.

Our goal is providing a Christian resource to edify the saints and to engage the community. But most of all, we want to glorify the Lord through our hearts, minds, souls, and strength. So, stay with us as we open up the Word of God and look into everything pertaining to life and godliness.

My name is Belushi Prevalon, coming to you from the Boston area. And right now, you are listening to Truology, the study of the truth, as it is in Jesus. Welcome to Truology. My name is Belushi Prevalon.

And on today's episode, we are going to be continuing our first series, which is called The Most Abused and Misused Verses of the Bible. This is going to be part three. And if you have not yet caught up on the first two episodes of this series, then you can do that anywhere you view and stream Truology, which you can find on YouTube, Spotify, and on Apple Podcasts.

I really don't want to do a recap like I did on the second episode, because I'm really trying to keep this at least to 45 minutes. I really want to do 45 minutes from now on on every episode that I do as the standard.

But I want to hop right into it so that we can use the time effectively and get to the goal of keeping this at a reasonable length for you. So, let's just hop into it. As a matter of fact, before I start that, I want to mention, I did a little promo video saying that I was going to do some verses in the book of 2 Peter and in 1 Timothy.

But because this may be in the future, I will do those verses. But I think the verses that we're going to be tackling today are a little more weighty and important. So, today we're going to be addressing a couple of verses from the book of Romans.

And then if we get to it, I believe we should be hitting, let me see, on the list here. So, it looks like we're going to be tackling a few verses in John chapter 3. So, stay tuned for that. Hopefully, I really doubt that we're going to make it through all four of these verses that I have listed here in this one episode.

So, what we'll do is we'll focus more on doing the two verses in Romans and maybe get into the first verse for John chapter 3. And then maybe in like part 4, I'll do the remaining verse in John chapter 3.

So, until then, please buckle your seatbelts and let's see if we can get into this and bring some clarity to the most abused and misused verses in the Bible. We're going to start this episode with, drumroll please, Romans chapter 5 verse 8.

Yes, this is a personal favorite. Let me just pull it up here. All right, Romans chapter 5 verse 8, we're just going to hop into this. It says, Now, the common meaning to this verse is typically seen in this phrase here.

God's love for all people was put on display through Christ's death. It doesn't seem wrong at all, but I'm going to contend in this episode that the biblical meaning is actually God's love for His people was demonstrated through Christ's death on the cross.

Now, both meanings have implications. The implication of the first is that of universalism. And I will define that in a moment. The implication of the second is particular redemption. Now, let's kind of draw this out a little bit.

And I want to bring the audience's attention to universalism. And perhaps, you know, let me first define it, go through some reason why some people believe it, and why it's potentially problematic for this interpretation of Romans 5, 8.

And then I will continue to use that definition and the things that we are expressing here to connect it to the fact that if this verse is saying what the common meaning says, then ultimately this verse is going to lead us down an unbiblical interpretive trail.

So, let's see what we can bring out here. So, if the common meaning is God's love for all people was put on display through Christ's death, then the implication, as I mentioned, is universalism. Now, a quick definition of universalism is the belief that everyone will be saved, according to gotquestions .org.

And according to this article that I found on defining universalism, continues to say, perhaps, this is giving a reason for why people may believe in this, perhaps it is the thought of men and women living a life of eternal torment in hell that causes some to reject the teaching of Scripture on this issue.

For some, it is an overemphasis on the love and compassion of God and the neglect of the righteousness and justice of God that leads them to believe God will have mercy on every living soul. So, according to gotquestions .org, universalism is the belief that everyone will be saved and it usually comes about because people typically find it hard to believe that God will punish sinners by sending them to eternal conscious hell.

And this is ultimately unbiblical because clearly Scripture teaches that God is holy, He is righteous, and He is the just judge who will not look away from those who have transgressed His law without punishment.

Alright? So, why is universalism the implication of the common view, which was God's love for all people was put on display through Christ's death? Why? Well, the reason why is because of... Well, I really want to argue because of context, first of all, but another element of this that we need to understand is the role of Christ in general.

Christ is the high priest. Now, the high priest was not just the only person, his only job, I should say, his only job was not just to bring the blood, sprinkle the blood upon the mercy seat, but his job was also to intercede for those for whom the sacrifice was made.

How could Romans 5 -8, according to the common meaning, lead to universalism? Well, if you say God's love was put on display for all people, and that Christ died for all people, then naturally and logically, that means that since His blood was put on the mercy seat and applied there for all people, then He must, according for whom the sacrifice is made, intercede for them.

And the sacrifice and blood of Christ, along with His intercession, work for the common goal of saving the soul of man in general. So, you see why universalism is an implication here? Now, many theologians throughout the ages have clearly argued upon the interpretive conclusion of this verse, but on today's episode, I just want to give you a brief survey of why I believe that this verse is typically misused and perhaps even abused.

The second meaning that I posited, the biblical meaning, which I believe is firm and true, is that God's love for His people was demonstrated through Christ's death, meaning that Christ died for whom He died.

So, He died for His people, the church. He spilled His blood for those for whom His sacrifice would be applied in time and in history. Therefore, He is there on their behalf to intercede for them for the objective of ultimately saving their souls.

Now, if we put those two views side by side, we see a clear distinction, how that the blood of Christ is not merely just something that is generally there for the sinner to now, you know, take action upon it, to take it as his own and apply it, but rather, the sacrifice of Christ was purposeful.

It was specific and particularly made for those for whom in time would come into its great blessing and grace revealed by the Holy Spirit in time through evangelism. Okay, so let me continue. If it's still not clear from this explanation, what is going on here?

So, Romans 5 .8, I'm contending that God's love for His people was demonstrated through Christ's death on the cross. Why can't the common view be the correct view? God's love for all people was put on display through Christ's death.

Well, one reason why this leads to universalism is because, well, just like we define universalism as those who overemphasize the love and compassion of God over against the righteousness and justice of God, this conclusion of Romans 5 .8 is ultimately very partial and segmented, and there's really no hermeneutical approach to it.

And ultimately, it could be because of bad exegesis. You know, upon that, beyond it is also modern evangelistic tactics like, you know, the Roman's road and reductionism, you know, posited by, you know, 20th century evangelists like D .L. Moody.

And what do I mean by all of that? Well, partial and segmented theology means that we take one piece of Scripture and we inflate it over against something else like that of universalism, people who put the love of God over the justice of God.

No hermeneutics and bad exegesis. By that, I mean that there is no look at what the words actually mean, what the author intended, what's the background to the letter, things like that. And modern evangelistic tactics by that, I really mean that, you know, we've really reduced the story of the gospel and the proclamation of its message to something that can be akin to a salesman tactic.

Like we knock on doors and we walk people through steps and we ask them if they want to say yes to the product. You know, that is, you know, we've literally, you know, brought down the amazing glory of the gospel to something that is just trite and trivial.

Now, I am not against the Roman's road, but at the same time, I do believe the story of the gospel and the message that it carries is more than just some checkpoints that we can hit with people by opening up the Bible and telling them about the six verses that will help them know how to get to heaven.

Now, with that being said, I also object to the common meaning because of the fact that it is impersonal in nature to the atonement, or I should say it presents an impersonal nature of the atonement. By that I mean, you know, it makes the atonement seem like something that you must now act upon.

When biblically speaking, the person who is to accept the atonement is not the person for whom the atonement was made. This is explicitly clear in scripture. When the sacrifice was made, it was presented to God to accept.

It was not presented to the people to accept. So, why does this make, you know, why does the common meaning make the atonement impersonal in nature? Because it makes it potential rather than perfect. It makes it general rather than guaranteed.

It makes it a provision, which really doesn't sound bad at all. It makes it a provision rather than propitiation. You see, when the sacrifice was made, the people for whom it was made were to have faith in God accepting the sacrifice.

The sacrifice wasn't made and then the high priest turns around and says, All right, the sacrifice is made. Are you going to accept this? No, the people already wanted the sacrifice to be made for them.

They already had faith in it. Now they were waiting upon God to accept what was sacrificed on their behalf. I hope that makes sense. Because, you know, we must ask the question as we look at this verse, you know.

And the question is, who will be saved? Are all people going to be saved? Are some people going to be saved? Or is no one going to be saved? Well, well noted John Owen of the 17th century said this in his book, The Death of Death and the Death of Jesus Christ.

I may also present this dilemma to those who believe in universal salvation. God imposed his wrath and Christ suffered the pains of hell for either. And he lays out these three categories. All the sins of all people, all the sins of some people, or some sins of all people.

Now, the first category, all the sins of all people is universalism. The second category, all the sins of some people is particular redemption. And the third category, some sins of all people, to be honest for me when I read that, it almost seems like it's the cousin of like the Roman Catholic system.

Because, you know, in Roman Catholicism you are justified, but later you can commit mortal and venial sins that knock you out of justification, and you need to be re-justified. Which means that Christ's death didn't ultimately cover for, you know, all your sins past, present, and future.

But you need to maintain your justification. So, no, we do not believe that some sins of all people were taken care of in the sacrifice of Christ. But rather, what I'm arguing for in this episode is that all the sins of some people were taken care of.

Which would bring me into agreement with what John Owen posited here. So we must ask the question, who will be saved according to this verse? Because if the interpretation is God's love for all people was put on display, then the natural conclusion, if you understand the nature of the atonement, and the personal nature of it also, is that all people will be saved.

Why? Because Christ is the high priest who gave his blood. Gave his blood for who? All people? Then he is going to intercede for them. And now we would obviously reckon that Christ is not interceding for those who are not saved.

And if he's not interceding for them, then that means his blood wasn't applied for them. I hope that it's all starting to shape up in your head, because we have a challenge before us. And I'd like to present this challenge.

And the question is really, you know, where does the scripture teach that an atonement, or the atonement that is made, must be effectuated by the person for whom it is made? Now, I already made a comment saying that the person that is left to accept the atonement is not the person for whom it is made, but rather it is God's turn, it is on God's term to accept or reject the atonement.

When the sacrifice was, you know, when the high priestly roles were established in Leviticus 16, we read that God commanded and instituted the system of sacrifice for propitiatory purposes for the people.

In other words, the people would have sacrifices made on their behalf, and they were believing that God would accept what was made for them. You know, the high priest didn't say, everyone, do you accept these things?

So here's the challenge. Where does the scripture teach that an atonement, or the atonement made, must be effectuated by the person for whom it is made? If that, you know, I'm sure there's many controversies in regards to universalism versus particular redemption, and I don't want to draw a stark contrast or false dichotomy between universalism and particular redemption, but as I'm addressing this verse here, that seems to be the case if the role of Christ as the high priest is to be understood correctly.

His sacrifice was made for a particular people for whom he is working to intercede before the Father for their eternal redemption in due time. Now, I want to also, oh wait, before I move on, I want to quote Hebrews 9 verse 11 through 12 to give a little more buff to what I've just said here.

Is the atonement potential, or is it perfect? Well, according to Hebrews here, it says,. But Christ being a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Now, does that sound like a potential kind of thing, or does it sound like Christ actually accomplished coming into the Holy of Holies now to intercede for his people? I would argue the latter. Now, you see, we have commonly used Romans 5, 8 to apply primarily to evangelism, but here I would like to argue that where this applies is primarily first to church edification.

And the reason for this is because the theme of the passage is all about hope as a result of righteousness by faith, according to one study Bible says. And the secondary application is now the evangelism of God's people, the call to repentance and the secure atonement.

You see, when people come to Christ, we should point to Romans 5, 8 and say, look at God's love manifest for you in that Christ died for you. He is your Savior. He is your Lord. You know, you have trusted in him and you have nothing to worry about because now you have hope, definite hope that has come because of the righteousness you have been imparted, because of the trust you have exercised in him.

But instead, what this has commonly been used to do is to say Christ died for all of us. Well, the logical conclusion then is if Christ is the high priest and his blood has been accepted by the father, then who is he interceding for?

The ball is not now in your court, but rather God the father has already accepted the sacrifice, proving it in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension into the holiest of all to sit at the right throne of God.

He is the he is the high priest that is now making secure all the things that he has procured for us, which is eternal redemption. Now, OK, you might ask, OK, brother Belushi, are you saying that Christ did not die for everyone?

Why not? Well, first of all, because of context. I mean, verses one through five in Romans chapter five here introduce us to exactly what we're talking about. And then verses nine through eleven begin to explain what exactly verse eight was just talking about.

And also, I mean, look, look, you know, there's so much that goes into understanding the case that is being made here. And I hope that we can practically continue to draw that out in just a second. But secondly, I want to I want to mention not just only context is the reason why, but the effect of Christ's death is definite atonement.

I've already just said, you know, that the role of the high priest is to present that, make make the sacrifice and then to intercede for whom it is made. In other words, Christ died for whom he died. Is that the whole world, meaning every single person throughout human history, past, present and future?

Well, the logical conclusion is obvious, as we have clearly noted here. OK, I want to now just if you're not swallowing this at all or you find this hard to believe or you've never even heard of this, I mean, if you're probably Reformed, then I'm most likely not saying anything you've never heard.

But if you are outside of the Reformed camp, I'm pretty sure this is coming to be a shock to you. But here, if you want to think about it this way, why can't this not be what has commonly been understood?

Well, do this experiment. Replace every pronoun such as us and we in Romans 5 with the phrase everyone in the world. So begin at like, let's say, where should we begin? Let me just pull this up real quick.

Let's uh, OK, let's let's do Romans 5, 8. Let's let's begin at Romans 5, 8 and let's go down to verse 11. And let's let's re let's replace every pronoun such as us and we with the phrase everyone in the world.

And let's see what we get. And the reason why I'm positing to do this is because it will help you understand exactly what the problem is. So let's quickly do that and hopefully it will bring draw out a little bit more understanding.

So Romans 5, 8. But God commended his love towards everyone in the world in that while everyone in the world were sinners, Christ died for everyone in the world. Sounds delicious already. But let's continue to verse 9.

Much more than. All right. So having the understanding of verse 8, much more than because remember, you know, Paul didn't just write Romans 5, 8 hanging on nothing, but rather it is part of an entire exposition.

Much more than since Christ died for everyone in the world being now justified by his blood. Who is justified by his blood? Well, Christ died for everyone in the world. Who who is he addressing here? Is he addressing every single person past, present and future in the world?

Or is he addressing specifically the church? Now, if anyone wants to object here and say, oh, just because Christ died specifically for us and we it has been effectuated for us and we we are the church who have come to recognize that does not mean that it is still not true for everyone outside.

You can hold that if you want, and I would encourage you to and make a state and make a case for it. But right now, what we are trying to do is is clear exegesis and apply some hermeneutical observations here.

You know, what is Paul saying? Much more than being now justified by his blood? Oh, are we still? It was Romans 8, 5, 8, just the general statement. And now he's, you know, talking specifically or is he addressing the entire church?

I would pause it, obviously, according to the first five verses who he's talking to the church much more than being now justified by his blood. Everyone in the world shall be saved from wrath through him.

Does that sound correct? It almost does, except for the fact that he says being now justified by his blood. Who is justified by his blood? The church. The particular redemption is explicit here. Being now justified by his blood.

Who is justified by his blood? Those who have come. Those for. I need to stop stuttering like that. Those for whom the Holy Spirit has applied the sacrifice.

Right.

Those that are that that is those who are justified by his blood. We shall be saved from wrath through him. Everyone in the world. Well, if you're still not buying that, let's just continue to verse 10.

For if when everyone in the world were enemies, everyone in the world were reconciled to God by the death of his son. Much more being reconciled. Who is reconciled? Everyone in the world or the church?

Where is Paul directing his emphasis? Where is he driving the pin here? Is he saying broadly everyone in the world, Jews and Gentiles, all alike, past, present and future, every single member of mankind?

No, but rather those who are reconciled. Those who have been justified. Those who were at one time enemies, but now have become are now saved by his blood.

Right.

So furthermore, in verse 11, not only so, but everyone in the world also joy in God through him, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom everyone in the world have now received the atonement? Question mark.

It doesn't sound so proper because when we look at Romans 5, 8, we must understand that the purpose of this letter is to express the work of Christ justification by faith. Here is what will secure you in hope because you have exercised faith in the righteousness of Christ.

The righteousness that has now been imputed onto you. You know, this is made for church edification. This is made for your growth. This is made. This is written for your security. This is not to be relinquished to just anyone.

It is supposed to be a precious verse to us. As a matter of fact, a precious chapter to show us that God demonstrated his love for his people through the death of Christ. I mean, we should be singing hallelujah to that because it does bring us great hope and joy.

You know, I first kind of stumbled upon this interpretation, whether you agree or not. I stumbled upon it through doing memory verses. I still do memory verses and I like to memorize big chunks of verses.

I don't like to just do one. And I have Romans 5, 8 through 11 memorized in my head. And, you know, I'm such a nerd. I would, you know, go throughout my day doing exegesis in my head because I would have the verse memorized.

So I would start, you know, going through it phrase by phrase, kind of parsing it here, asking questions about it there. And one day it hit me after I read Romans 5, after I, you know, went through Romans 5, 8 in my head.

I'm like, wow, you know, you know, God, you know, God is so good. You know, he commends his love towards everyone in the world. And that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for everyone. Wow, it's so amazing.

And then I got to verse 9, much more than, and it hit me like a freight train. Wait, Paul is continuing his thought on what he said on Romans 8. Why have I been disconnecting these things rather than putting them together as one concrete flowing thought?

And that was my mistake. And in looking at it more broadly and even, you know, intricately as it is connected to everything around it, Romans 5, 8 started to make sense. And that is the conclusion I want to draw here, which is this.

Romans 5, 8 is referring to the assurance that the saints of God have in knowing that their Savior's death amounted to their justification or right standing before God. And the appeasement of his wrath towards them when they were his enemies in time past, but now are reconciled to him by the pure divine graciousness.

This was the intent of the father in sending the son to die for those for whom he was sent to die. God's people. Now, with that being said, I want to leave you to be a good Berean and search the scriptures to see whether these things be so.

Because now we are actually going to move on to Romans 6, 14, as we consider the most abused and misused verses of the Bible. Hey, folks, thank you so much for tuning into Trueology. My name is Belushi Prevalon.

And if this has been a help to you in any way, please like, share and subscribe. And if you haven't already done so right now on Spotify, you can vote for the next episode. Now, I already have a bunch of things lined up, but I want to give you the audience the opportunity to participate on what Trueology will be covering next.

So go to Spotify, type in Trueology, vote for the next episode, and I will see you next time as we study the truth. Thank you. OK, looks like we are literally at the 30 minute mark. So let's just hop into Romans 6, 14, which I am going to read now.

It says, You know, the common meaning is always posited to be, we do not follow God's laws anymore. Whereas the biblical meaning, which is what I'm going to argue for, is that the reigning grace of Christ enables us to live a life that is under the dominion of his righteousness, which is laid out in the laws of God.

Now, why has this common meaning pervaded in the Christian realm? Well, really because of the foul attitude we tend to have towards God's laws. We tend to think that God's laws are these damning, hard task and list of rules that are so burdensome upon us that in order to be right with God, we really have to find a way to be freed from them.

And that is to simply accept Jesus because he came by grace, not a book of rules into our life. And now we are to live simply by the spirit that is now attesting to our hearts what to do and how to live through some kind of sense and a force of mysticism.

You see, this has brought deleterious effects to the church because what this has ultimately done is that it has introduced to the church this concept of antinomianism. Now, the word antinomianism comes from the two Greek words anti, meaning against, and the word namas, meaning law.

So antinomianism means against law. Now, theologically, antinomianism is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey, right? And antinomianism takes a biblical teaching to an unbiblical conclusion, according to GodQuestions .org.

The biblical teaching is that Christians are not required to observe Old Testament laws as a means of salvation, which is correct. That's the biblical meaning. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, he fulfilled the Old Testament law.

The unbiblical conclusion of antinomianism, though, is that there is no moral law God expects Christians to obey right now. Okay, you get saved. Now what? Well, according to antinomianism, there is no rules by which God expects you to live.

You know, you kind of just live by the mystical feeling of the spirit. You know, you kind of live with what you know to be right and wrong and what could be attested to by the Bible. Now, no one who is antinomian would say that, but that's ultimately the grounds upon how they exercise their moral conduct in the first place and how they express their salvation.

Antinomianism doesn't expect us to obey God's laws, while the biblical view, which I'm positing, is that God has given his laws as a means of life, not salvation. We do not need to have this sour attitude towards God's laws to the extent that we forsake them.

Yes, we cannot be justified by the law, but the law actually serves a purpose in not just pointing at our sin and pointing us to Christ, but actually after being in Christ, you know, you're saved. Now what?

Well, now you know what you're expected to do? You're expected to walk in the blessings of Christ, which is manifest by the laws that he held. You are now living in his righteousness. Let that righteousness pour out of you.

And what does that righteousness look like? Well, it looks like someone that is obeying God's laws and following its precepts and general equities. Why? Because Christ pleased the Father. He did everything that was pleasing in the eyes of the Father.

He lived obediently. If we are in him, what ought we to act like? Well, obedient. And that is shown to us by God's laws. And we are not supposed to forsake them to such an extent that we're saying, oh, these are no longer useful to us.

We can kind of just live spiritually as if that's ever really defined. Okay. So the misunderstanding for why antinomianism has come from this verse. One is because most people, when they're quoting this verse, really don't quote the whole thing.

I mean, when you hear Romans 6 .14 quoted, you usually hear, for ye are not under the law but under grace. That's the part you hear. The part that you don't hear is, for sin shall not have dominion over you.

Well, in order to understand what that means and the following phrase, for ye are not under the law but under grace, you need to understand from whence verse 14 came. And obviously, that would necessitate that we actually read verse 14 in the preceding context and the verses following.

Of course. Now, secondly, the reason why antinomianism becomes a part of this interpretation is because of a misunderstanding of the meaning of grace. Grace is not a license to sin. How do we know that?

Well, according to Romans 6, as a matter of fact, in the following verse in Romans 6 .14, in the following verse in verse 15, we read this. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?

God forbid. So Paul expresses the highest extent of no to the church that he is addressing. No, just because we are under grace doesn't just mean we can live how we want. Or I would put it in this vernacular.

We can't just simply live how we feel is right in a spiritual sense. But rather, we are governed by God's laws. In Romans chapter 3, I believe the last verse in verse 31, Paul says that we don't simply put away the law but rather we establish the law.

He's talking post-salvation, after salvation. He's not simply saying now that you're a Christian, now that you're believing, you just put away God's laws. But rather, now you establish the fact that God's laws are good, they're just, they're moral, and they're binding upon all people, saved or lost.

So a misunderstanding of what grace means often brings a misunderstanding of Romans 6 .14. The first two verses in this chapter clearly say, what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? So, is Romans 6 .14 simply giving us the notion of antinomianism? No, because the meaning of what being under God's grace is, is not a license to sin.

As a matter of fact, let me attest to someone that has written a commentary on this. Charles Hodge, probably one of my top five favorite theologians in Christian history. Charles Hodge, in his commentary in the book of Romans, and in referring to this section, says,.

The apostle reminds his readers that every purpose of Christianity is to deliver men from sin. That everyone who accepts it, accepts it for this reason. And therefore, it is a contradiction in terms to suppose that anyone should come to Christ to be delivered from sin in order that they might live in sin.

In addition to this, it is clearly suggested that this is not only the purpose of the gospel and the reason why it is gladly received, but also that the result of union with Christ is a sharing in the benefits of his death.

In other words, we should not misunderstand grace to the degree that we think that it is a license to sin. But as Charles Hodge says, the reason why we accept the gospel is because we want that changed life.

We want the life that it brings, the righteousness of God, which is clearly displayed and expressed in his laws. The laws that at one time we could not keep, but now being in Christ, receiving his full blessings of his accomplishment of them, now get to live out those laws because we are under the grace of God and empowered to be able to do so.