Romans chapter 8

vs 31

Again, the wording here is somewhat misleading. Of course people and forces can still be against us. The question is firstly rhetorical, and secondly it seeks to intimate that no matter who is against us, if God is for us, then their againstness is worthless in comparison. It is not that as Christians we will not suffer any opposition. Indeed, Christ promised we would! But instead it is that such opposition is nothing compared to the support we have from God. However, when that support doesn't happen in time with the actions we are taking, it can seem like we are being overcome. Something to watch out for. The key is to have faith that God will overcome, in his time. Even if that means at the end of time, which pretty much can mean that you'll never see the particular opposition you're facing overcome in your lifetime.

vs 32

If God has given up his most treasured possession, his son, the expectation is that he would then give up anything for us. This logic is not 100% infallible. After all, if I give up my most expensive possession to purchase something, it could stand to reason that the sum of all my other possessions is worth more than the most valuable one on its own. Or it could even be that once I have made such a large sacrifice for something, I am not prepared to make yet another sacrifice of that size to keep it, preferring to keep what I already have.

But this is to think materially, and not relationally. The fact is that humans have regularly in the past sacrificed all their possessions for the sake of relationships, especially family relationships. God here is expressing his divine nature of relationship in being prepared to make ultimate sacrifices for the benefit of his relationship with humanity.

vs 33

If it is God who justifies, then there is no one else who can bring charge. Satan is of course at the top of the list, being "the accuser". But even he can't charge us, because we have already been made righteous by God.

vs 34

There is none who can condemn us when our justification comes from so high a source. Not only are we put in the right by God's action of sacrificing his son, but his son now lives again and stands at God's right hand, forever speaking on our behalf and putting himself up as the reason for our rescue.

vs 35

Since all the other questions asked so far have been basically answered "nothing, no one, never" we can only assume that Paul is going down the same road with this question. But this is at least on a different tac. The first questions were about our situation, our status as redeemed, and whether that could be rocked by condemnation or accusation. But now Paul takes it straight to the heart of God, and asks whether anything can separate us from that love which was shown in Christ Jesus. The suggested things could basically be shown as sufferings through which Christians had to persevere.

vs 36

Paul even backs up this claim, showing by quoting scripture that these things are an assurity for us as Christians. While in the first instance we may think that Psalm 44 is talking about the Messiah, and maybe rightly, Paul is in fact comparing the life of the Christian to that suffering.

vs 37

But to Paul, the Christian life is one of battle, but also of conquest. These difficulties are faced, and overcome. Not, might I point out, by us. They are in fact overcome through Christ. But since Christ has overcome them, we need not fear them. We will still suffer them, but they are as the blows of a defeated enemy - while still painful, even deadly, we can rest assured the war is won.

Persecution, then, is like a minefield. Set during war to cause damage and mayhem and casualties. Even when the war is won, the mines don't turn off and start sprouting flowers. If you step on one years, even decades after the war is over, it will still blow your legs off. But the people who planted them (the bad guys of course) have been defeated, and the process of removing landmines can take place. But that is a long and slow and dangerous process.

vs 38-39

This is one of the most obvious verses for showing the assurance that we can have in our salvation through Christ. If there is nothing that can separate us from the love that God has for us through Christ (that is our salvation - God might love his creation, and all people, but the love through Christ is surely salvation), then we can be assured that this love is never doomed.

There is however a logical problem, and a question of the wording.

The logical problem is this - if nothing can separate us from the love of God, does that mean God can't do it? Can God not choose to drop us out of his hands as he wills it? This is a very similar question to that in Hebrews about it being impossible for God to lie. The idea that God cannot do something is anathema to the idea of God's omnipotence. Usually I find it sufficient to write these questions off against a finite understanding of omnipotence, a concept that we can only pretend to understand. That's not a very satisfying answer, though, is it? I then sometimes go further to state that God is God even over logic, and that laws (even logical laws) don't apply to God, and that therefore paradox can exist in the Godhead and his actions. Again, not exactly satisfying, but it's difficult to argue against.

The second question regards our own ability to end this relationship. While it might not be possible for any external forces to separate us from the love that is our salvation, is it possible for us as humans to reject it? Calvinists I suppose say no - I am guessing this would be part of the idea of irresistable grace. I will say that this verse in its wording can be read to support that we cannot reject it - the idea that nothing in all creation can do it does in a way include humanity, what with us being creatures and all.

I think the question is an interesting one. As Christians, we can so easily get caught up in the "education is salvation" argument which is so totally flawed - it's the one that goes "if you teach people the truth, they will have no option but to accept it". This is an unfortunate load of complete bollocks and chips. It is from this argument that we have the "teach people more about their enemies, and they will see that they are just people like them, and they won't hate them anymore" - an argument that disregards the countless times someone has learned the innermost secrets about their enemies for the purpose of crushing them all the more heartily. So Christians make the same argument, saying "If people only really understood their predicament, really understood what was on the line with salvation, sin, hell and eternity, then they would choose Jesus and be saved!" Bull. This assumes that all there is to decision making is some sort of rational process that can be guided by logic. This is saying that if we knew it all, then there wouldn't be a decision to make, because the answer is so obvious.

It's just not so.

This is not flicking a switch. It is a relationship. And people are not just logical binary numbercrunchers. They have minds, but they also have hearts, passions, and feelings. I fully believe that someone could know God exists without a shadow of doubt, understand fully the grace-through-faith principle, realise the enormity of eternity and see what is on the line, and yet still decide that they did not want to crown God as Lord of their existence. While I don't usually credit Satan with super-branium capacity, I'd give him at least this much. And if you have to understand eternity before you can make an informed decision about salvation, then we're all doomed, aren't we?