Only Two Contrasting Options available

Certainly not. Hence my surprise when you do it.

I show the "inconvenient detail" that so clearly debunks your argument - from vs 7. There Paul admits that the church in Rome is rightly "the saints" and are those saved by the Gospel - whose faith is being proclaimed all over the world (vs 8) and whose sanctified life he Admits to even in his closing remarks to this church in Romans 16:17-20.

The more you ignore these inconvenient details in the text itself - the easier it is for me to focus on that part of the text so directly challenging to your position.

I am content to continue posting the so-called non-existent verses that are so blatantly debunking your argument in Romans 1.

Nothing better than simply pointing to the very verses that you are so uncomfortable with to make my case.

Surely you can see how easy that would be given the way you have gone out on a limb in your argument.

Your argument is with the text itself and that leaves me with a pretty easy job in this case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hint there is no person "named" in Romans 2:1-29 as either saved or lost just as in Matt 7 there is "no person named" by Christ as being a "good tree" or a "bad tree" as being on the "wide road" or the "narrow road".

At what point did you think this was a solution for your argument?

I find your logic illusive at that point.

And they are specific to the "one who calls themselve a Jew" inside the Church of Rome -- the lost jews who "do the SAME THINGS" (2:1) as the barbarians Paul himself condemned in Chapter 1:18-32.

So yes - the message to "lost jews" inside the Church of Rome in chapter 2 is "negative".

But as it turns out Romans 2 is comprise of MORE verses than 1-5 and 17-24 -- which is where your argument falls flat.

Paul deals explicitly with the success cases in vs 7-16, and 26-29 of Romans 2.

Pretty hard to miss. But each time you do - I will guote the texts that you are so anxious to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

 

HP: When DW stoops to such a low level he is lacking any resemblance of Christian charity. The lack of substance in his arguments should become clearer for the reader to see when DW resorts to this low ebb of personal attacks.

Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

 

Did you have any logical or even Scriptural argument debate here to add to this debate? It doesn't look like it. Why even post then?

 

The argument was between Jews and Christians who boasted about being righteous before God. That was maybe ten percent or less of the world's population at that time.


Romans 3:
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

I don't know that because God instructed Moses to teach that the Mosaic Covenant was available and doable. God told Moses to teach that there were no sacrifices for intentional violations but that unintentional violations would be forgiven on the basis of repentance and restoration where possible. The sacrifices were a visible demonstration of an internal repentance in the same way that Baptists interpret water baptism as a visible representation of a spiritual baptism. Look it up for yourselves in Deut.

 

Romans 2 expands that contrast and compare model -- to the saved saints vs the lost Jew who is INSIDE the church at Rome who "causes the name of God to be blasphemed among the gentiles" because while claiming to be a saved Christian Jew they are actually living in violation of the Law of God.

1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.
3 But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Rom 2
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?


5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,


...
17 ¶ Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Paul flatly condemns those Christian Jews in the Church of Rome that happen to be lost. Like Christ in Matt 7 and the Apostle John in 1John 2 - Paul argues that in violating God's Law they show that they are not saved.

He then contrasts them to saved gentiles both inside and outside the church of Rome and says that salvation will go not only to the saved Jews and Gentiles inside the church of Rome that are shown to be "doers of the Law" that have their hearts circumcised by the Holy Spirit - but even gentiles OUTSIDE of the Church who have no access to the bible at all - and yet "show the work of the Law written on the heart" whill be judged as "saved" saints, Rom 2:27-29.

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Obviously.

Clearly "your argument is with the text" - Paul addresses the lost state of these rebellious church members (lost jews) in the church of Rome as follows -

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

in Christ,

Bob

 

No, Bob. The argument lies in your flawed interpretation of the text. What makes you think that there were unsaved Jews in the church at Rome?
1. What makes you think that the church in Rome would accept a devout Jew into membership.
2. What makes you think that an unsaved Jew would even consider being baptized, which is what he would have to do to gain membership into the church?
3. Why would a Jew consider joining a Christian assembly when they are the ones persecuting the Christians. Consider Paul's life before he was saved. It was an insult to the Jewish community for a Jew to become a Christian. They considered the Christians, as the Gentiles, unclean.

Your entire argument is flawed and illogical. It is also against Scripture.
This is who Paul writes to:

Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. the beloved of God.
2. those called to be saints.
3. The called of Jesus Christ (vs. 6)
4. whose faith is spoken of throughout the whole world (vs. 8)

Does the above description of those believers in the church at Rome sound like unsaved Jews? Of course not! No unsaved Jew is called a saint, or "the called of Jesus Christ." These are believers in Christ, and only believers in Christ. That is who the letter is addressed to.

I have been in many churches (where all the membership is composed of baptized born again believers). And yet the pastor preached a sermon on the new birth. Why? Because he wants to teach his people thoroughly on this doctrine to make sure they have a thorough understanding. They may know that they are saved. They may have the rudiments of salvation. But there is always more to learn.
This is the way it was with Paul's letter to the Romans. There was always more to learn about the doctrine of salvation. It is the greatest treatise ever written on this doctrine, and every believer ought to pay great attention to what is being said, and not assume that the audience is not them (if they are believers).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Paul is not claiming there are any lost Jews in the Church at Rome!

HP: Excellent points BR. I suppose it could or might be said in one sense that none are ‘eternally’ lost while on this earth for certainly they could accept and obey the admonition and be saved in the end. Just the same, IF they continue on in the same path apart from true repentance, damnation will be their eternal ruin in the end.

You have indeed debunked the false theories of both DHK and DW succinctly. The theories of both DHK and DW concerning this text only survive in the confines of their own imaginations with the aide of their false theories and notions.

 

Do you also fail to look at Scripture?
Who is the letter of Romans written to? Unsaved Jews??

 

HP: Maybe for the same reasons Christ sought out devout Jews to be His disciples.

HP: Have you ever heard of deception??....thinking themselves to be something they in reality were not? The Church is full of such deceived individuals today, believing they are saved due to the gospel of a sinning religion they have sat under and swallowed.

HP: Possibly for some of the same reasons some on this list proclaim Bible believing Christians,(but unknown to their blinded eyes as such) and everyone but themselves or doctrinal clones, as heretics, blasphemers etc. etc. Who really knows??

 

By the way DW, you have done nothing but manufacture a theory as to why this text was written, proclaim your theory infallible, and castigate all others that take issue with your false manufactured notions. I suppose I could stoop as low as you have dealing with others, but what would that possibly accomplish? I will simply say that your demand that it is either your way or the highway simply provides less than a solid basis for interpretation of any text.

 

Read my question again. Perhaps you didn't understand it. I will put it in words that you do understand.
Why would the First Baptist Church of Rome allow unsaved Jews to become members of their church?
Put in that light your answer makes no sense at all. Remember the church at Rome was a local church. I don't know of any Baptist Church in America that would accept into their membership an unsaved Jew. Your answer does not makes sense and is plain ludicrous.

There is no such thing as "The Church".
For your understanding again: "The First Baptist Church of Rome."
Even if your unsaved Jew was so deluded that he would be baptized (highly unlikely--probability--0%) --the First Baptist Church of Rome still would not accept such a person. They would not be that naive.

This "list" is not a local church. Your above statement needs no answer. It is too foolish to warrant an answer. For those who don't remember what you gave this answer to, it is this:

3. Why would a Jew consider joining a Christian assembly when they are the ones persecuting the Christians.
--When you have an answer that makes some sense tell me about it.

 

HP: That is certainly a debatable point depending on where one stands theologically, the theories one has bought into, and who are your spiritual fathers.

HP: Pray tell us one sound rule of interpretation you have used to arrive at the theories you espouse????

HP: Again, says who?? DW?? You are going to have to offer some evidence other that you say it is so DW.

HP: Yes, and if they fit lost professors, thinking themselves to be saved but on a road to destruction, it addresses them. Paul clearly is addressing a problem within the church with his comments. Whatever happened to the old clishe’, “who was this book addressed to?” Oh I almost forgot. That is only good for some if it fits within the confines of their own devised theories.

HP: You have no other basis for that remark other than DW says so. Well, I for one believe DW is in error in his unproven assumption just as BR has faithfully pointed out.

HP: As I said. You are long on theory, quick to pronounce it as infallible “period.” You are a master at begging the question DW.

HP: What a preposterous conclusion. “If any man sin…..,.” Are you going to remain faithful to your narrow interpretation of the word “if” and tell us that such is only a hypothetical case? Such a lack of reason and logic as you are dosplaying is pathetically self serving.

 

My spiritual authority is the Bible and the Bible alone. Bob is SDA. His authority lies in EGA and elsewhere. The Bible is only one authority.

It is called sound Bible exposition. Students of the Bible employ it all the time.

We both have studied this book. I have taken it, outlined it, and in fact preached from it--every verse of it. Having done so should be evidence enough. However, having done so, I could offer you an extensive bibliography of consulted works, but I don't see that need.

You argue against the wind, make no sense even when the context of the passage in question is so plain right before your nose.
1. Paul is writing to the church at Rome. It is a local NT church. In this letter he mentions unsaved Jews, not "fit lost professors." So, if you want to demean the word of God by your sarcasms that is your choice. If your not interested in serious Bible study then don't post. We are not interested in answering in vain and sarcastic philosophies.

A logical study and faithful exposition of the book of Romans easily points this out: justification is by faith and faith alone (Rom.5:1). But you wish to add to the word of God and contradict it. The basis for our conclusions is the Bible itself. The basis for your beliefs is your philosophy--a man's vain imagination.

He said. "you cannot disprove this." and this is your answer. He was right wasn't he? All you did was complain about what he said. You have made no attempt at disproving what he said, because you can't.

The epistle was written to Christians at Rome. Remember that.
He was teaching them of the different aspects of salvation and a few other matters. Everything that he wrote and taught in that epistle was addressed to and directed to believers to "The First Baptist Church at Rome, a local visible church.