Only Two Contrasting Options available

Obviously it is a theory that you are not capable of dealing with or you would. So the evidence I have given stands up.

 

Quote:
DW: Bob's point is not an "excellent" point but a perverted point. DHK set forth the evidences against Bob's point and those points were "excellent."

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.

It is not a matter of theology it is a matter of correct Biblical exegesis. Bob basis his theology on eisgesis not exegesis of Scripture. For example he takes a statement from Romans 1:7 and then tries to characterize Romans 1:1-17 as dealing with progressive sanctification of the believer. It does not take too much to prove that is wrong as the whole context deals explicitly with the gospel ministry apart from acknolwedging who he is address the letter to and prays for in verses 7-13. JUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT YOURSELF - it is obvious that he is wrong.

Quote:
DW: The only thing that Bob had "debunked" is common sense rules of interpretation. Here are the contextual facts that cannot be overturned by Bob or by you.

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

The most important single rule of interpretation I follow and emphasize is interpreting every passage by its immediate context. Bob's abuse of Romans 1:7 ignores the immediate context which has to do with the gospel ministry not wiith progressive sanctification as Bob asserts. Just read Romans 1:1-6 and you can clearly see that is not the subject as Bob asserts. Just read Romans 1:14-17 and it is easy to see that progressive sanctification is not the subject of the immediate context but rather the gospel ministry.

Quote:
DW: 1. The church members have already been addressed in redemptive terms in Romans 1:7-9 but those in Romans 2:1-5; 17-24 are not addressed in redemptive terms but in terms of condemnation and judgement.

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

Paul says so and I quote: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
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.First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Does Paul use any terms outside of redemptive terms in addressing those he is writing above??? Please point one such term out???

In contrast look at the terms of condemnation and judgement used for those in Romans 2:1-5:

1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Please find just ONE term that defines those described above as RIGHTEOUS? Just ONE


Quote:
DW: These judgemental descriptures are addressed GENERICALLY to whoever may fit them - "O Man, WHOSOEVER THOU ART" rather than "O church member, whosever thou art.' You and Bob must change the language to force your interpetation upon it.

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.

Find just one term, one word that describes those in Rom. 2:1-5 as SAVED people or CHURCH members? Just one?

Quote:
DW: 2. Romans 2:6-8 impartially sets forth the criteria and consequences for justification under law (vv. 11-13) without making any final applications to any persons in the church at Rome or outside the church of Rome - period.


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.

Verse 5 concludes by defining the final judgement as "righteous" that is Paul's words not mine. Verses 6-8 set forth the criteria for eternal lfie versus eternal damnation determined "according to his deeds" under the righteous judgement of God.

Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

It is stated in generic terms "to them" in both cases. Who are "them"? All those who simply fit the criteria. It is stated in ethnic terms "the Jew" and also "the Gentile." Who is "the Jew" and who is "the gentile"? All Jews and Gentiles that fit the criteria.


Quote:
DW: 3. Romans 2:17-24 addresses the ORTHODOX JEW and the commonly well known mind set of LOST JEWS and the absolute proof is Romans 3:9 that says Paul had addressed such lost Jews as there is no other options prior to Romans 3:9 that Romans 3:9 can refer to or apply to but those in Romans 2:17-24 AND YOU CANNOT DISPROVE THIS - Period.

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.


Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,....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.


What kind of Jew RESTEST IN THE LAW? Saved Jews rest in Christ not the Law. What kind of Jew BOASTS in the law? Saved Jews BOAST in grace and in Christ. Paul is a Jew and He does not REST in the Law nor does he BOAST in the law. Indeed, is not that exactly what Paul says the true doctrine of justification does not do in Rom. 3:27 - "Where is boasting then? It is EXCLUDED? By what law? The law of works? NAY..."

Quote:
DW: 4. Romans 2:25-27 repeatedly use the word "if" to demonstrate Paul is speaking HYPOTHETICAL only. You don't use the word "if" when speaking about factual cases but only for hypothetical cases. This is the case "IF" they meet this criteria and that is the case "IF" they meet that criteria. To claim as you do, that these are actual cases simply ignores the langauge.

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.

For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
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?

Your objection to be valid would have to use the word "since" in the place of "if" since you demand these are actual cases of fact. Go ahead and try to insert the word "since" where the word "if" is found above and see IF it makes sense? It creates a CONTRADICTION between the first and second phrase in verse 24 as the same person cannot at one and the same time keep and violate the law.

Paul is not setting forth actual cases but POTENTIAL alternatives. IF you do this, then the consequence is this BUT IF you do that the consequence is this.

Finally, I dare you to find where previous to Romans 3:9 where Gentiles are proven to be sinners outside of Romans 1:18-32; 2:1-5 or where Jews are proven to be sinners outside of Romans 2:17-29??? What does Paul say in Romans 3:9
What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Come on, show me where Paul "BEFORE PROVED" that Jews and Gentiles are all UNDER SIN in Romans 1-3:8??? You cannot do it, if you regulate Romans 2:1-5 and Romans 2:17-29 to CHURCH MEMBERS! Take my challenge and SHOW ME where if not in those passages???????