Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1616812]Have you noticed that Evang benincasa doesn't come out directly to say that babies go to hell, though he seems to indicate this by his comments?[\quote]

Babies don’t go anywhere, Hell, Heaven, or Limbo.


.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

Don, there isn’t a discussion with you. You don’t what to discuss a topic. You want to post your thoughts unchallenged. Hope you and your old UPCer buddy have a good time spit and whittling over your beliefs of salvation by human conscience.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1616817].

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

This is where your conscience salvation ends up on its head. What is the conscience of a baby? What is the conscience of the mentally impaired? Does the Bible Gospel even touch, top, side, or bottom of this argument. Yet, you also teach yet another access to the heavenly kingdom through one’s own death as an infant. Instead of holding a sensible discussion on the topic, you lose your bearings since you only hold to three scripture verses. You then resort to ecclesiastical philosophy based off of your own religious emotional pleas.
Hence the reason this thread is useless to those wanting a discussion. You don’t want anything more than what you believe about salvation by human efforts to be legitimate. You refuse to be challenged on what you believe, and that’s cool. Go hang with your 47 years wrong UPCer who’s been believing the same humbug as you. Don’t try to fly it up the flag pole and then ridicule all those who won’t salute it.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

You enlisted the guy’s supposed thoughts to us as some sort of legitimacy of your salvation by right living man’s conscience. As far as I’m concerned he doesn’t exist in this argument. Unless you drag him into this thread physically to defend the salvation by conscience. You won’t, therefore using him (nameless) to add credibility to your argument was useless. Therefore we can’t possibly continue this discussion due to you repeating yourself. Which makes us repeat ourselves.
Bring your UPCer buddy, and let’s pick his brain?

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

I'm having second thoughts about locking the thread sooner rather than later. I had been accused of not replying to arguments and had been rereading the posts and replying to them. I had gotten to around post 199 for rereading/responding. Could we hold-off on the locking until I've had a go. I'd rather not have the 'not responding to arguments' accusation hanging on my head.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

[QUOTE=Amanah;1615567] Post 201 Amanah says: Paul is not arguing for anyone to be saved without a covenant.

Paul argues that Gentiles can be considered Abraham's offspring through faith connecting them to the Abrahamic Covenant, and through Christ into the new covenant.

Paul argues that these gentiles of Ro2 have not the law and therefore would be without covenant. Yet Paul says these who show the work of the law written in their hearts are candidates, v15,16, for heaven because the doers of the law will be justified. This shows some going to heaven without covenant. If the defn of covenant is taken from Ge 6, which contains the first time covenant is used in the Bible, then Ge6 shows that being in covenant is accomplished when hearing God's command and doing it, as exemplified by Noah in this ch. If this definition of covenant is used then those who listen to God direction in the God-given conscience, then how are they different than others who heed God's directions? The conscience directs one from sinful actions and toward right living. These gentiles may be in covenant if being in covenant is a stickler for you to get into heaven.