Book of Romans,
Qumran, Diaspora, Augustine/Pelagius Debate, LaRondelle vs Priebe et al
The Book of
Romans was one of Paul’s last books. He wanted to visit that church but then
could not. Anyone reading the book need to know about the times that Paul wrote
to finally see, that our own time is almost no different. Herman
Olshaussen in his commentary on Romans (before 1839, volume 3 online download from
Harvard University), pointed out that what is behind the book of Romans
interpretations of the church is the debate between Augustine and Pelagius on
salvation and sin. He said that in Antiquity, preceding his own writing, they
knew only of two ways to discuss Romans, either the way Augustine did and with
variations and nuance differences to the point of semi-Augustinian or
fractional Augustinian views and opposed to that the way Pelagius saw it or
variations, nuance differences to the point of semi-Pelagianism or fractional
Pelagianism. He said that with Pelagius, complete or partial, these
interpreters conceived of humanity as “an aggregate of independent, free,
intelligent individuals, in virtue as in sin, every person stands and falls by
himself”. One should hear the voice of Denis Priebe and his YouTube videos
here. On the other hand, the Augustinian interpreters conceived of mankind as “a
collective, selfcompleted body, in which separate individuals are by no means
disengaged and independent wholes, but integrating parts of the totality”. Then
Olshaussen makes a strange observation (he died 1839) that if one interprets
with the Pelagian model, then one has to disagree with Paul but stand with the
rest of the Bible but in his opinion, Augustine is the wholesome view that
agree with Paul “alike with the Apostle Paul, and the whole Scripture” (page
575).. It is not difficult to see on whose side he is on. In his own time he
wanted to introduce a new stance different than the two systems. It is a system
that finds echo with the Hegelians (Martin Hegel) asserting that evil is just a
negation. It was the view of Origen which they revived, says Olshaussen. “Adam’s
fall could be no loss to him, for he had nothing to lose, but only the
manifestation of that deficiency which clave to him as a creature; the
sinfulness of the race could not proceed from Adam’s act, because all bear
themselves the same deficiency which made Adam’s fall necessary and they just
as much as Adam must have been brought into that opposition, of which it is no
advantage to know; Christ accordingly worked only so far in redeeming and
atoning, as by his Divine fullness of life he made up the created deficiency in
the creature.” It was the view of Usteri (Paul Lehrbegr, 4th edition
page 24, described by Olshaussen on page 577). Olshaussen did not want to
accept Pelagian rationalism of the biblical texts neither this new view that
saw evil as a mere negation because he felt that Scripture does not support
such a view. They view it that evil is without substantial being but rather in
actually disturbed relations (Olshaussen 577). Olshaussen then used a metaphor
that is pleasant to read. He said that Adam’s sin was like opening a gate to
the Spirit to enter just as a spark enters into wood to burn it. He said that
without the kingdom of darkness, Adam’s sin could not have caused such injury. Adam
was the porter with the keys of the gate and held the destiny of mankind in his
hands. Adventists operate with the Great Controversy between Satan and Christ
and the Rebellion motif and his actions after Creation in the Fall is essential
to understand the origin of sin in the human race. Ellen White also described
it in narrative style bringing together scanty texts from Isaiah, Ezechiel and
elsewhere to sketch the scenario in vivid detail, in which she was not alone
attempting to do that since Grotius, Joseph von Vondel in his Epic Poem
Lucifer, Milton and others did the same. There is a long history of this
problem in heaven and earth. The reality cannot be overlooked. LaRondelle’s
discussion on Romans should be seen from his Dissertation on Perfection &
Perfectionism. It was originally published in 1971 at a time when the Brinsmead
and Ford debates started to increase their momentum slowly. It was in 1973, or
close to that, that Ford completed his doctorate and went to Avondale. He was
the one who tried to revive the views of Luther on sin and righteousness in the
Adventist church. Magazines from California followed suit to produce in the
second half of the seventies articles comparing Luther and in their view,
legalism. To have their view is correct, but to have the opposite view was
legalism. It was that strong. With tapes, booklets, pamphlets, sermons, they
tried their best to create a crisis in Adventism and made comments on the
Shaking in Adventism. Even in those years it was clear that Augustinian and
Pelagius views or Luther and Arminius or Calvin and Wesley, or as LaRondelle
brought it out, the debate between Zinzendorf and Wesley on the 3rd
of September 1741 (LaRondelle, 319). LaRondelle found himself at home with
Luther but not with Wesley. That is clear if one reads his dissertation from the
back to the front instead of from the front through the biblical exegesis to
the back. The Old Testament and New Testament passages interpreted could be
done so with nuance differences depending on what baggage or mental theological
view (Augustinian or Pelagian) one approaches the text. It was always a
pleasure to listen to LaRondelle preaching or teaching. His dissertation
brought out some problems though. LaRondelle held
to a view which is Lutheran but called: simul iustus et peccator. At the
same time just and sinner. Why was it important for LaRondelle to hold to this
view and oppose Wesley because he did not hold this view? Throughout LaRondelle’s
dealings with scholars of the past, in his disseration, it was because they did
not subscribe to this essential element simul iustus et peccator that
LaRondelle resisted their teachings (LaRondelle page 320 footnote 420). The Reformers had the view that original sin
is in everyone and no matter of regeneration, it remains in a person causing
many problems in faith. Wesley believed also like Augustine in original sin in
a person but after regeneration, original sin was removed like a rotten tooth
is taken out (LaRondelle page 323 footnote 444). In Adventism, Priebe presents
that original sin is not an Adventist concept, and so it was presented also by
Don Neufeld in his Sabbath School Quarterly in 1980. Wesley was of the opinion
that deficiancies remain but not sin. LaRondelle wanted a saint to constantly
say that he/she is a sinner in need of Christ’s salvation. Wesley wanted a
sinner to constantly pray to God that he/she may be worthy of the price He paid
for us. Luther wanted the sinner also to realize that although he is a saint,
he is also a sinner = simul iustus et peccator. Pelagius, Arminius , Wesley,
and Denis Priebe would find each other in good company. Augustine, Luther,
Calvin, Zuzendorf, Olshaussen, LaRondelle would find each other in good
company. So we sit with LaRondelle versus Priebe just as we sit with Augustine
and Pelagius? What would
LaRondelle say of Romans 6:21: “What fruit had ye then in those things whereof
ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22. But now being
made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto
holiness, and the end everlasting life”. Saved by grace instantaneously it
seems elsewhere in Paul but here in Paul that salvation instantaneously available,
is apparently ‘just in hope’ which only realizes “in the end”. In between is “your
fruit unto holiness”. Sanctification is not discounted by Paul but maintained
by him. Forensic justification is only the beginning of salvation not the
absolute end of it. That justification is apparently daily necessary but on the
progress road of sanctification which is developmental spiritually, mentally and
experientially for the person. Objective justification frees from sin as guilt,
condemnation, pardon, overlooking, but fruits of that regeneration is a
sanctification process that kicks in leading to holiness which, if we are
worthy of the price He paid for us, we obtain everlasting life as reality and
no longer as just a mere hope. If Luther and
LaRondelle wants to hold to simul iustus et peccator, then how do they
interpret Romans 6:22 “now being made free from sin”? Not a freedom at the
eschaton. “Now” is in the time of the composition of the book of Romans. There
is of course the caution here that “sin” in Romans does not always refer to our
sins but to Satan, the originator of sin. In Romans 7, many times it is not
original sin in my body, but Satan that worked sinful passions. “Sin” in that
context is Satan and has nothing to do with original sin. What would
LaRondelle, Ford, Luther, Augustine make of Hebrews 3:14 saying: “For we are
made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast
unto the end”. The condition is sanctification. Justified by Christ move on now
to sanctification, Paul says here. Paul was aware
of the views of Qumran and LaRondelle makes a great point in his dissertation
of the link between the views at Qumran in the Manual and the Thankgiving Hymns
and Paul’s views in Romans 7. My own research shows a link between Peter and
Qumran, John the Baptist and Qumran. John the Revelator is an interesting one.
All the Isaiah citations that we find in Revelation are in 1QIsa scroll at
Qumran marked with strokes in the margin. The marks are very striking. It was
almost as if John had this Qumran scroll in his hands writing or copying for
his great book on the visions at Patmos. I have found similar language between
Pesher Habakkuk and 1 Peter 4:17 on the view of the Investigative Judgment that
must precede the Executive Judgment in future. An article on this will soon
appear. Paul did not plagiarized Qumran and neither did the apostles. Their
library was an excellent opportunity to read the scriptures and they may have
spent time there reading and making notes for their books. Also in those days
there was a common method, like the Chicago style of writing, going around with
a midrash interpretation style that we find in the Targums, Qumran, and in apparent
LXX citations in the New Testament. They all used the same method of writing,
they all shared the same views almost, but what was different is that they
identified different Messiah’s to come or came. John 1 is almost a sermon
addressed to the Qumran community in their jargon to explain how Jesus is the
one they were expecting to come as well as the role of John the Baptist. Many
phrases are the same as Qumran. Another point was made by W. Davies in his book
on Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, (1948) namely that the Pharisees in
Jerusalem was more conservative and Hebrew/Aramaic orientated while the
Pharisees in Rome and elsewhere in the diaspora was more Hellenized and spoke
rather Greek and Latin. They use to invite knowledgeable people from Jerusalem
as speakers in their synagogues because they wished to learn how to live better
in the community with the government and society. This is why the apostles were
so easily received in these synagogues of the diaspora Jews.
To be continued…..