(November 3, 2015 at 11:39 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:Stay on target, stay on target...(November 3, 2015 at 10:48 am)Drich Wrote: Actually no.
Paul is saying those who embrace sin are evil
Those who sin but hate their sin, or are ignorant of it can be saved.
The people in Acts 17 were examples of sinners.
The people of Romans 1 are identified as evil.
The people of romans 2 are just sinners.
I am not trying to talk past you, I am bring you something new you feel you already know but appearently dont.
If we can be allowed to get past all of this, the book of Romans makes a big deal between sinners and evil people. It also tells us God does not expect us to ever stop sinning in this life. We just cant embrace or love our sin, because that would make us evil. God has no room for evil people.
The word in Romans 1 for evil is:
κακός kakós, kak-os'; apparently a primary word; worthless (intrinsically, such; whereas G4190 properly refers to effects), i.e. (subjectively) depraved, or (objectively) injurious:—bad, evil, harm, ill, noisome, wicked.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2556&t=KJV
This evil is paired with this word:
ἀδικία adikía, ad-ee-kee'-ah; from G94; (legal) injustice (properly, the quality, by implication, the act); morally, wrongfulness (of character, life or act):—iniquity, unjust, unrighteousness, wrong.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...=G93&t=KJV
These two words describe "Evil men" or unrighteous men of Romans 1.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rom/1/1/s_1047018
Verse the words describing the sin of Romans 2:
ἁμαρτάνω hamartánō, ham-ar-tan'-o; perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly, to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin:—for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...264&t=NASB
Their is a vast difference between one who 'tresspassed, has faults, miss the mark, or offends.' Verse those who are iniquitious, unjust, injurious:—bad, evil, wicked.
List 1, the sin list. One does not have to even be aware that he is in sin, or maybe in a position where that person is not in control of sin. (as per our discussion on gay people) and yet can still be in sin. This describes the people of romans 2
List or defination 2 describes someone or a group who embrace or want to do harm/sin for whatever reason. this is the people of Romans 1
So the people of Romans 2 AND Acts 17 belong to the sin group. They were either ignorant of their sin or were "slaves to sin" (per paul in romans 7) They get a different treatment from God if they repent, than those of Romans 1. the evil people/People who justify, embrace and love their sin.
I'm not sure why you think I don't grasp this element of what Paul is saying. Paul talks a LOT about "the law" (meaning Hebrew tradition) and what the concept of what God considers "sin" actually means. Nothing you're saying here is revealing or shocking to me.
It's simply a way of defining anyone who disagrees with his interpretation (and yours) of What God Wants™ as willfully evil, because they know what sin is, now, and yet refuse to accept that they are sins. It is not one shred different from the Muslims who claim, in Surah 29:45-49
"45. Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book, and establish prayer; surely prayer keeps you away from indecency and evil. Remembrance of Allah is the greatest, and Allah knows what you do.
46. Do not dispute with the people of the book except with what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to you; our God and your God is one, and to Him we submit.
47. Thus We have revealed to you the book. Those whom we have given the book believe in it, and of these (Jews and Christians) there are those who believe in it; and none deny Our signs except the disbelievers.
48. You did not recite any book before it, nor did you transcribe one with your right hand, for then those who follow untruth would have doubted.
49. Nay! It is a clear sign in the hearts of those who have been given knowledge; and none dispute Our signs except the unjust."
You citing Romans to us is no different than a Muslim citing Surah 29 to you.
Their is a difference. I am quoting Romans and Acts 17 to show that Bart's arguement is critically flawed, because he wrongly assumes that the group in acts 17 and Romans 2 is the same as the evil men in romans 1. That "all Men are without excuse." When the Romans 1 text says Evil men are without excuse. Because their are two different groups being address here and not the 1 bart Er-ham says, that means everything based on bart's one group assumption is also wrong. (That the Paul of Acts is not the Paul of Romans)
