Numerous Topics Eventually Leading to a Return to the Brownson/Homosexuality Discussion

And greetings. Welcome to the dividing line. I guess we completely forgot to turn the monitor on in here since i have uh no idea what's uh going on there. It's uh completely black so i hope we're on. I can't tell but what.

Well it's not on in here it's uh see that it's uh it's just completely black. It's incorrect so it is on but it's incorrect that it's right off. Right. Oh okay it's coming back it's coming on now. Yeah good all right.

Thank you appreciate that. I would have maybe noticed that if i wasn't rushing so much i completely lost track of time as to when we're getting started today. I had a bunch of stuff going on and then looked at the clock like that and uh barely got some stuff queued up.

Um i mentioned over the weekend that i listened to the airman bass debate and we will get to that. Um i don't have the video here to i'm arguing with myself as to whether it might be worth doing the audio note taker thing which takes a lot of time takes a lot of my time to do.

I don't have anybody does that for me it's all all me myself and i um but airman's presentation i i don't know how someone tells the exact same jokes at the exact same point in the exact same presentation um and still gets laughs.

That's that's the scary part about it. Um you know like when you're in a debate on the deity of christ and saying well i'm really up against it here obviously because you know the bible is clearly against me because as jesus said in john 15 i am divine and you are two branches and so there you know jesus is divine.

So why am i arguing. It's really uh how many how many times do you expect that joke to to to get a laugh. But anyway um sure there's a lot of stuff that we've dealt with in the past in in airman's presentation that doesn't mean it's not worth dealing with again because as you know ermine is the primary source for so much of the secular attack upon the christian faith in the western world today that it'd be worth going over.

But what was particularly interesting was his accusation uh that to identify jesus as yahweh is to engage in the ancient heresy of subalienism patripassionism or modalistic monarchianism. It's plainly obvious that bart ehrman did not pay a lot of attention in theology class.

Um whether it was at moody or wheaton or princeton. Um i would love to quote princeton professor um benjamin breckenridge warfield in refutation of princeton graduate bart ehrman on that one. And i would love i mean the only way this will ever happen is if somebody out there wants to lay a big check out on the table just to make this happen.

Because ermine doesn't have any interest in debating me again. Uh when you post the debate going well this wasn't really my best debate for look for for someone who believes his own press as much as bart ehrman does.

That's a huge admission. That's a huge admission that someone went toe-to-toe with you. And you know uh anyway but i would i would travel to chapel hill to debate bart ehrman on because he said straightforward that i i didn't queue it up but i can play it for you straightforward straight direct quotation jesus is not yahweh for any of the new testament writers.

Now what's funny here is you remember remember um shabir ali at pretoria university. Well we can't accept this because obviously what what paul's saying here is that jesus yahweh. And that's exactly right.

Um it's he accused bass of being a modalist engaging ancient heresy of sebalianism by assuming that yahweh is unipersonal. So it would be. So it would be it would be an easy debate. I mean he made the direct statement jesus is not yahweh for any new testament writer.

I'll go to chapel hill and debate him in front of his own classes on that uh but the only way that would ever happen only way that would happen is if he walks out of the room with a big fat check in his pocket.

Uh because otherwise ain't ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen. Well he might do a you know donate to charity type thing i suppose. But uh but i'd love to do it because wow. But anyways well well i'm thinking put that into audio note taker and deal with everything he says.

Because it there were some fascinating quotes that my muslim friends need to hear before they quote bart ehrman because they think they understand what bart ehrman is saying and they don't. Bart ehrman is a naturalist.

And it's interesting there's a guy on twitter named andrew livingston. Well i doubt that's his name but i think if i recall correctly uh let me see if there's something here author muslim vegetarian. That question about islam you just asked me is one you can already find the answer to in photos and videos or my favorites page fort smith.

So that's that's all we've got for andrew livingston on twitter. Um and for some reason he started popping off. There's a young student that i tried to deal with eventually had to block. You know you try to deal with someone try to see if they have the ability to engage to reflect to learn to go get past just you know surface level mantra type uh argumentation.

And eventually after you know a long time um gave evidence that couldn't pull that off. So i guess he jumped in on something along those lines and we just had a lengthy conversation on twitter about consistency.

And his big argument against me is you accuse all your opponents of being inconsistent. And i go uh well if consistency is what you're testing for in a debate if the purpose of the debate is to test for consistency if the reason you have two positions there is so they can examine each other to test for consistency then your argument is exactly what again and all i can just keep repeating it.

I mean just as i was as i was coming in here literally a matter of moments ago uh he found another place where i pointed out someone's inconsistency and i said excuse me but if all i was doing was saying you're inconsistent and i couldn't document it that would be one thing but i demonstrate what the inconsistency is.

How can you discuss truth without talking about consistency. But the whole thing now is that's just all you do you just that's all you do. Is you say that we're inconsistent. Well if i document it that that means you're wrong.

Right. Um so evidently clear thinking uh not not not real big uh on the internet ever really these days um political process oh give that up um but especially amongst our um some of our muslim friends where consistency is is definitely um sure it's fly.

Anyway it would be awesome to force bart ehrman to be consistent here one of the things that is that again my muslim friends the connection point i was making here is they love to quote bart ehrman and one of the things i just mentioned in passing this led to some of that conversation actually is i did a long ride on saturday so i could listen to the whole debate and do some other things.

And i've got a long race coming up in a couple weeks in tucson so you got to get some saddle time. So i did a ride the same length and almost the exact same amount of climbing as we'll have down in tucson for alter to tucson which is this huge massive race.

It's enjoyable but it's also scary and it's only scary primarily because there are over 9 000 other people on the roads not not in cars on bikes and not all of them are as skilled as you'd like them to be.

And the only time i've ever had a bad crash bike damaging road rash giving crash uh was an alter of tucson and it was completely unavoidable. It's one of those things where two guys cross tires falls on top of my front room.

You're that's it. So i was out doing 104 mile ride to train for that and i listened to it and i remember i was on cave creek road the first time i went. Oh my goodness bart ehrman is channeling akma d dot because he's doing the where did jesus say i am god thing and i'm like wow here here we go again.

But but when he says it his challenge is different than d dots. I mean it sounds the same but the where he's coming from completely different perspective because what what he's saying is yeah all the gospel writers believe in the deity of christ not in the exact same way.

If you've read his book you know john has the highest view and blah blah blah. And he has this really weird. You know we talked about his really weird theory about jesus being an angel uh based on galatians and stuff.

And when his book came out what was that 2014 early last year sounds about right. Um we talked about all that at that time. So his it sounds the same but he's actually coming after completely different perspective.

So none of my muslim friends want to say well yeah sure all all the writers of the new testament view jesus as god. Uh no that's not their argument their their argument is that that developed much later and so on.

So forth. Well it depends on the muslim you're talking to these days. I mean there is no one muslim argument anymore. And there couldn't be because the quran doesn't provide one muslim argument and the arguments that it does provide yeah a lot of the modern muslims recognize aren't really really good.

Um you know jesus used to eat food his mother used to eat. Therefore he can't be god. Uh you know at least i can respect that as a true muslim argument because it comes straight out the quran. That's obviously the arguments being made by the author of the quran.

Um the problem is it just demonstrates such a complete ignorance of what we believe about the nature of the incarnation the nature of christ. And since there isn't any meaningful interaction at all with christian theology on that level within the quran.

That's why i think a lot of modern muslims try to avoid it. Mr livingston seems to be listening. Um as i expected you repeated yourself and ignored my response not just error. You say double standards from everyone.

Mr livingston you seem to be logic challenged. You seem to have a real problem understanding basics of logic. Let me try this one more time because i have heard you and your arguments are really really bad.

And i'll explain to you why you cannot discuss truth claims without discussing consistency. Consistency is the mechanism by which you demonstrate the validity of truth claims. If you say something is true and the next moment say something is false you are being inconsistent.

If you're talking about the same thing in the same context in the same way it is consistency over time and consistency through the course of an argument that demonstrates truth claims. Debates demonstrate whether the worldview you're presenting and the facts as you're interpreting them in the worldview are truthful and the way you determine that is by their consistency.

And so it is a given that if i am debating against a false worldview and against a false interpretation of the facts that the other position will have to be inconsistent. And it is my job to demonstrate the inconsistency.

There would be no reason for me to do a debate with someone whose position was more consistent than my own because that would mean they're being more truthful than i am. So it is an absurdity mr livingston to complain that i point out consistency and inconsistency because that's what a debate is about.

Now you can have factual errors in your arguments. And i have often demonstrated when my muslim opponents have presented factual errors. When yusuf ismail presented a factual error regarding dan wallace's book i pointed it out i didn't say you're being inconsistent i said you're wrong.

But there is a difference mr livingston between having factual errors and being inconsistent in the interpretation of things that are not factual errors. So when to use an example that i pointed out just recently yusuf ismail argues in durban that the gospels must be word for word reproductions of one another.

And if there are any differences then they're contradictory. And then when we point out that the quran narrates the same events using different words and he says that doesn't matter that is an inconsistency it is an uneven scale.

It is the use of double standards. It isn't an issue of what the facts of what matthew and mark said or the facts of what surah 7 and surah 29 says it's whether you're applying the same standards to the analysis of both all of that whether you have your facts straight and whether you're being consistent in your application interpretation is a part of the process.

Okay. So you're demonstrating your utter irrationality because in the midst of my explaining that you respond you see double standards every opponent of yours is guilty of them. And i'm not to think the problem is with you.

There's no reasoning with you sir. You're not listening you. You don't have any commitment to truthfulness or to logic or to rationality. There's no reasoning with someone like that. You you. Yes sir you're right.

I am absolutely committed to consistency. And if you can't hear the rest of it you just demonstrated that uh you have no commitment to truth and no understanding of even how to recognize truth. So there you go.

Uh we've we've made it as clear as it can possibly be. Uh and if you can't see it uh then it's a either a spiritual incapacity or a a willful blindness on your part. Oh there's only only two options. So anyway so back to ermin.

Uh when muslim apologists use bart ermin they don't seem to understand that his objections are based upon a what should be a completely different world view of their own. So on the one hand they're willing to borrow the naturalistic world view of bart ermin.

But they won't apply that to the khan double standards. Again i don't care whether you don't like hearing that facts are facts. Truth is truth. Law of non-contradiction remains law of non-contradiction.

If you want to throw all that out uh you might as well go join isis because that's how they do debates too. And maybe maybe there's a connection there. Uh who knows. But um so ermin's whole point is yeah yeah paul believes in you know jesus is an exalted creature.

And these gospel writers believe jesus is god in in a sense that that's fine. But jesus could not have ever said these things. And when you ask how do you know that then he has to default back to these naturalistic premises.

And no naturalistic premises is ever going to give you a basis for believing that jesus would make these claims of himself because it's a supernatural thing not a natural thing. It did. He starts spinning in circles so hard that it's uh it's it's amazing to watch it.

It really is. But um i'm not sure why i'm telling all this stuff about ermine when we're not looking at ermine today but i just i did mention it and we'll uh we will get to it. One of the things that i wanted to get to uh i need to get to get back to.

I do have a tendency to chase the shiny thing. Not just during the program but when you do a series of responses to people over time things are going to come up. Things are going to develop. Um you know uh things happen in culture wars take place.

Uh you know books come out um and and so that that ends up getting in the way of finishing things up. So i want to get back to um the brownson response. I was pushing on that a little bit before we went to south africa.

I was preparing for the codrington debate which we did post. Yes i've been seeing. Yeah it's on youtube and uh i'm seeing links to it. And um in fact a turretin fan was saying in channels warning he had listened to it for the second time and had found to be helpful and um so i have had people asking about where the use of his mail debates are.

I just got an email last week i think from the videographer on that and this is strange because i need to ask rudolph about this. Now i think about it because i thought we were getting that material and in fact that the material is already ready to go.

But i got an email asking for the powerpoint keynote of my presentations for for both evenings. So i'm not sure what that means. I don't know we haven't gotten it yet. We'll see. Uh we'll see. But um we'll obviously put it up as soon as it's provided to us.

Um but i was preparing for the graham codrington debate. That's where where my focus was. And you know once that was done then there were some other things to catch up on and so we haven't we haven't pressed on with the brownson thing as as vigorously as we should have before i get back to that.

I'll do the last portion of the program on that but before i get back to that uh there is uh some interesting stuff out here. Why did that go over. Okay um i was sent a link. I don't have it in here but to a book.

I guess it's been out since may no one told me about it. Or if they did i didn't see it. It's possible. Um by robert wilkins. Uh what was it called. Let me see if i can uh bring it up here real quick in amazon because the even the cover was um amazing.

Robert wilkins. Let's just see what that comes up with. Uh i didn't know robert wilkin. Um obviously i have there we go there. It's called. It's wilkin singular os is on it. Uh a gospel of doubt. The legacy of john macarthur's the gospel according to jesus by robert and wilkin.

And um got a picture of a guy on his knees at an altar with his head buried in his hands. A gospel of doubt. I'm not looking forward to this but i bought it and i will try to remember this evening to get it converted because i've gotten a long ride this weekend.

And i can't guarantee i can't guarantee because some of these books are depressing. Okay that's just that's just all there is to it. And you know there's this one hill i need to climb and i don't need an extra burden on the way up you know.

So they're like uh i'm already suffering. I need to suffer more you know. So uh it it all depends um but i'll try to get to as quick as i can. But i find this extremely troubling because i have pastorally seen the havoc that the wilkin wilkin uh non-lordship salvation cheap grace ticket punched going to heaven um semi-gospel uh brings to the church.

It's a horrible thing. And i've i've seen the impact it has upon muslims. I've told you a story about the guy that i i came to me afterwards after a presentation on islam up in boulder and one of the misconceptions that we had to deal with was that all the christians he had talked to were easy believers and they were the wilkin non-lordship type people.

And so he's going i just don't understand how you think you can you know just tip your hat toward jesus and go live like you want. And uh we're all like well let's talk about that. Um and so one of their arguments is that if if you don't have the ticket punched no repentance no self-examination no holiness without which no one ever seen god.

Oh never mind that. Um if you just if you allow the natural tension that exists in the new testament text to be there well then you don't have my absolute confidence and you know i've i've talked to i've talked to people who have a bob wilkin confidence as they sit there in their easy chair you know watch tv never go to church don't give christ second thought in their life.

But they've got their ticket punched and they've got confidence. Yeah right. Okay uh so i'm i'm gonna have to write to phil johnson and see if uh they're preparing a uh response but a gospel of doubt the legacy of according to jesus.

Oh yeah. Hey you that's uh that gives me hives. Something else gives me hives is three days ago uh dr david allen tweeted book contract signed on extent of the atonement. Digital version out in may. Print version out fall 2016.

Publication estimate 850 pages. That sounds like a robertson jazz book. Yeah. No. Uh there's a reason why it has to be that long and everybody knows what that reason is. I don't think i have a copy in here but uh from heaven he came and sought her.

Um was what about 780 pages something like that. It's a it's a big book and i didn't count this. I didn't go and you know go looking for this. Um but it seemed to me that in that book the person who got the most mentions as having blown the argument was david allen.

And so i think he's been hurting about that ever since that came out. And so this is his counterblast this is his this is the way for the uh anti-reformed southern baptists go here's ours. Ours is even bigger you know.

And um and i just i just keep thinking about the fact that only seven years ago at the john 316 conference 2008 here's this guy now remember david allen i have refuted thoroughly on his accusations against me took a whole program to go through his footnote in his book and what he said and just point by point take it apart.

No response. Nothing. Just just he's just gonna let it hang there. He's gonna let the false accusations stand. And i'll you know i just let you make the decision as to what that means standing challenge to debate staying challenged to debate there in dallas.

Um i mean it'd be good. You've got to put a book out on it. Why not debate it. Right. You know. But that won't won't happen. Um so we've gone through all this stuff. But in 2008 it was painfully obvious that he was new to this subject.

He's even made the statement that he began studying the subject at that time and we pointed out that he was dependent for his sources upon students. This was a new area to him. And now so desperate is this realm of southern baptist anti-reformed armenianism that he's become their go-to guy in that relatively short period of time.

So there you go coming out next year from david allen book on the extent of the atonement that's exciting very very very exciting. And uh suppose if it's out on kindle you know i can't imagine doing 850 pages of that.

But uh it's the price we pay all right now for the last half of the program here. Uh why are we doing this. To remind everybody again. Because james brownson's book oh see still have it here hasn't been that one.

There are there are two go-to books. The original go-to book for a long time was john boswell's christianity social tolerance and homosexuality. Boswell was himself homosexual died of aids. Um what.

Yeah. Yeah. Um this is you do to do to do to do. Well why don't you have it right out here where it's easy to see i don't know. Uh oh there we go. Print's getting really small 1980 university of chicago.

So for a long time for the liberal folks boswell now boswell's stuff has been shredded. It's just bad uh grossly imbalanced use of sources. Um you know just just not good stuff. Uh but there you go there's there's boswell.

Boswell being liberal really wasn't what a lot of the matthew vines types were looking for. And so just i think this is 2013 2013. So this came out after matthew vines viral video. And so vines's arguments are pretty much more skanzonian mollincott scroggs boswell standard revisionist stuff.

And then after his video comes out this book comes out bible gender sexuality reframing the church's debate on same-sex relationships. And as i pointed out bronson's son came out as a homosexual. All of a sudden the position that he had as a theologian before now changes.

Remember david gushy sister came out as a homosexual. His position changes. Um i think it is perfectly appropriate to point out when people change their positions when a family member or someone close to them all of a sudden decides that they are homosexual and yet they want to be accepted by god as a homosexual.

They want to demand that christianity change its morals and ethics to fit their personal feelings. And y 'all go. Okay we'll find a way to do that. So brownson's book comes out and brownson's book becomes the bible of the gay affirming the conservative gay affirming.

Not not the daniel kirk's the fellow that uh dr gagnon uh debated. Not not those kinds of folks but the uh the ones who want to try to maintain some claim of uh some claim of evangelical credibility conservativism.

I still believe the bible is the word of god type stuff. Because it's pretty hard when you when you take positions like daniel kirk and say we need to learn to think differently than jesus and the apostles did you know you can talk about the bible being the word of god all you want.

What do you mean by that. It doesn't really have much meaning anymore. And so brownson liberal reformed uh but much more conservative than some others has become the go-to guy if you recall. Because we'll put this all together with what we've already done before.

If you recall we had looked at romans 1 and we've done this many times. And if you recall in the codrington debate i did it again. I walked through romans 1. It's not that difficult to do. I mean you know you know sometimes people come into audit.

I just wish i could do what you do. And do that. I've been dealing with this passage for decades and eventually you know uh you it shouldn't take much in the way of preparation if you've been especially if you've been dealing with the passage not just in response to one group but in response to challenges from all across the spectrum in every different different direction.

You want to know what we can really get confidence in handling of a particular text is when you've had to present that text in opposition to really almost a 360 degree range of objections. Uh if if you've only for example defended.

Well good example isaiah 43 10. You know for most of my young life isaiah 43 10 was a text you quote to mormons. And the only real relevance was the last phrases before me there is no god formed there should be none after me.

Then all of a sudden you start dealing with jehovah's witnesses and oh this is where they get their name. And then all of a sudden you start dealing with the with the i am sayings of jesus. And whoa it's right there.

And so when my muslim opponent a couple weeks ago in durban says isaiah 43 10 is my favorite verse in the bible. Let's like strike up the band here we go. Uh you know because you've now dealt with this text from numerous different directions uh and and that cast different light upon the text that helps a lot.

So we went through romans one we walked through it we saw the creation narrative behind the entirety of romans one. And by the way may i may i say that having to deal with the radical truly radical way beyond brownson brownson doesn't even mention this in this presentation anyway and i don't think he did in bible gender sexuality.

But i i need to look um the radical theory that graham codrington has put forward that romans 1 18 through 32 is actually not paul speaking but paul representing a common jewish understanding that he then argues against for the rest of romans.

Even having to think that through has greatly enriched my understanding of that text and its place in romans. Because i i i submit to you that to take that perspective turns the entirety of romans 1 through 319 on its head.

It destroys the argument of paul. It destroys it. And so once you've heard an argument like that then you it strengthens the foundations you have in seeing how this is related to that this related that so on so forth.

So in going through romans one we point out the the creation narrative that is found there in opposition interestingly enough to the book of wisdom in the apocrypha um which sometime we're gonna have to it'd be an interesting program someday just to throw that up on the screen and walk through three or four chapters of wisdom.

Because i i would imagine the majority the vast majority of this audience has never read the book has never the book. Um vast majority of protestants have never read the apocrypha at all. And that particular book it is we were discussing in channel just this morning.

I forget who i was talking with may have been dort ga or somebody i'm trying to remember i think it was um there are a number of very clear very obvious not to be rejected not to be criticized connections between paul and romans and wisdom.

There's no question about it. Um i wonder if i have it. I wonder if i have it here. Um did i i'm not sure if i installed this i had to actually i don't know if you saw i had to buy a module in accordance recently uh to get the a modern translation semi-modern translation of um wisdom that would match up with my septogen in uh in accordance and i'm trying to remember uh which one that was.

Uh i thought it was the nrsv. Yep yep yep. Yep. It was there. It is all right. I got that. And wisdom. Yep. Okay. Uh yeah dort and channel just mentioned. I actually hadn't gone to link dort that you you provided.

But uh this is the i'm pretty certain that this was the text that you mentioned. Here's wisdom 15 -7. This is in the apocrypha wisdom 15 -7. A potter needs the soft earth and laboriously molds each vessel for our service fashioning out of the same clay both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses making all alike but which shall be the use of each of them the worker in clay decides.

Sound familiar. Heard that one someplace before. Um yeah now are there pottery. You know the potter and the clay things in the old testament sure are. But did you catch that both the vessels that serve clean uses and those for contrary uses making all alike.

That's not in jeremiah but it isn't roman's not. Now you might go. I'm not sure i like when paul makes allusion to a non-canonical book like makes lots of illusions to non-canonical books he quotes non-canonical books.

But here is the point he never identified every one of his uh hearers would have known what he was referring to but he never identifies this book of scripture had every opportunity in the world this would have been the perfect time to go as the scripture says and then quote directly from wisdom.

So he doesn't do that and do that because he knows while it's still it's a book that he can make reference to he can make allusion to because his hearers will understand what it is. He's not citing his scripture because he knows it isn't scripture.

So for the roman catholic who's constantly doing the luther took out these books from the bible thing. This is this is a problem. This this is a a major uh major problem. Uh there. But there definitely seems.

And of course if you were to uh look at uh where's my uh d huh. I thought i had one in here there might be here if i can do this without putting glasses on. Yep there it is. If you look at your nasi allan text i was looking for my ubs text because it tends to have more of these references.

Um let's see drag it ubs in here. Um but for those of you who use or are we really wandering around the planet today. Sorry. Um especially those of you that could be trying to follow the brownson response going man that was a weird aspect of it.

Yeah this is strange. Yeah um if you use the nasi allan text and i don't you know i don't know if uh let me see here if i can show this to you because i'm not i'm not sure that i have the sigla um in this electronic version.

Yeah i don't. They're they're. Probably there's probably notes probably na28 notes someplace that i could uh pull up uh that might uh might have all this in it. But i'm not seeing it in the midst of all the bazillions of things i've got here.

So anyway if you use the nasi allan text you will see next to 921 two references in the column. One is jr 18 6 that's jeremiah 18 and then sap 15 7 sapient wisdom. And so that may not suggest to a lot of people because remember they're using they're not necessarily using the english titles of books but the the cross reference is provided right there in the nasi allan text.

Um and again just because there's crossroads does not mean you've got to be really careful. No one no one is denying for a second that the new testament writers were ignorant of all these other books that existed out there.

No one's saying for a second they didn't make allusions to them. That doesn't make them canonical. Any more than quoting the pagan greek philosophers makes them canonical. Or if the new testament was being written today if someone were to quote pilgrim's progress that doesn't make it canonical for some reformed baptists.

A little close there. I'm not sure it's a little scary at times. But um anyway so we went through romans one. We talked about its deep connection to the creation narrative. We talked about what its old testament background was.

We talked about the consistent reading of the text where you can follow the line of thought all the way through the creator the creation exchanging. You saw in the codrington debate how how you know graham is a professional speaker.

When did he look. The least professional and most nervous was during cross-examination. When i am specifically challenging him to deal with the text. Did he have answers. He did. Were they consistent answers.

No. They were not. No they were not. Oh i'm sorry sorry mr livingston i mentioned consistent again. Um but that's what debates are actually all about. Then i mentioned to you what you're gonna see in brownson.

And what he does in his book is he has to try to break every connection between romans one and the creation narratives. He possibly can. Because if that's the background then what natural means the the woman abandoning the natural use.

The man abandoning the natural use of the woman. Very clear he has. He has found a way in his thinking to open the door to the acceptance of homosexuality within the church part and parcel of how to do that is to shift the context of romans one.

And isn't that they all have to do that they all every revisionist argument is going to fundamentally require an abandonment of any meaningful textual reading of romans that is going to consistently flow from beginning to end.