Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1615568] Dom says Post 202 He also told the one thief who proclaimed Jesus as the King, that the thief would be in the covenant that day. Err... which covenant was that Dom Benincasa? The new covenant started on the day of Pentecost, and the thief died 40 days before.

...no one can brag that they made it to heaven on their own. But you don't see that. What I do see is people without the Word following another God-given way, the way God uses to direct people away from sin and toward doing right -- the conscience. That doesn't fit the defn of the self-righteous who do things their way, not God's way.

Galatians 2:16

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But, even though you read those words you say Romans 2:12–16 negates those words? Why do you confuse these who follow the God-given conscience with those who follow the law?

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

When did you become a moderator?

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

Had this discussion last week.

Seems to me that there is a distinction between babies/children born to parents who are in covenant with God, vs everybody else:

1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

A few remarks:

1. The unbelieving spouse is already in the category of "unbeliever", so that person's "salvation" is clearly not being discussed. The unbelieving spouse being "sanctified" by the believing spouse seems to simply indicate that as far as God is concerned, the marriage is righteous enough that the child(ren) are considered part of the Lord's congregation. So the unbelieving spouse being sanctified does not imply anything about that person's final destination.

2. The fact the children of a believer are considered "holy" and not unclean, implies (rather strongly) that the children of unbelievers (where neither parent is a believer) are classed as unclean, therefore not holy, not set apart to God, not considered part of the Lord's congregation.

3. These lead me to believe that the child of a believer, prior to reaching the "age of accountability", is in some way grandfathered in to the covenant. Upon reaching the age of accountability, they have to make their own decisions and exercise their own faith in Christ. (Thus paedobaptism is erroneous.)

4. What this "age of accountability" is, I do not pretend to know. The concept, however, is certainly present in the Bible. It does seem that the Bible recognises 20 years old as the age at which you stand or fall on your own moral condition. But I am not sure I would press that to mean every child of a believer under the age of 20 is automatically considered saved until they hit 20, at which point they have to actually convert.

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

:lol

Re: John3 and Romans2: Part2
 

Yes :thumbsup