Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
Don, please read the above. This is what’s called “bee lone nee” On one hand you claim God showed you this drivel concerning Romans. But, previously in your first post you humble up some teary eyed slather on how your just a human. You have limited understanding? You may have left something out? Then you say how you exposed your thoughts for examination. Don, this just isn’t true. If GOD showed you, then how could you be wrong on what He showed you? Dom, you are very observant and astute here on your conclusions. I'll admit that when someone receives a revelation, there is the possibility they may be deluded, because the devil makes delusion possible. Any person wishing to walk in truth and not delusion will present their revelation for examination, knowing there is safety and wisdom in doing so. This is what I've done. You even sign off your initial post with these last words “If I'm in error, I want to know it.” My estimation is you have not shown me to be in error, in fact lumping me in with previous others who have been defeated by you. You've also lumped me together with those who believe other than the gospel, having a good works for salvation doctrine. Because you were right then, you conclude you are right now. I invite you to examine the Word in a situation which isn't the same. My efforts to dissuade you that I don't believe in a salvation of good works have have not been received as given -- in truth and verity. You choose to apply different definitions than I. Thus you reject my testimony of myself, content to believe what you want to believe about me, in spite of my contentions to the opposite. Oh, well. I only have control of my own opinions and must be content with the inabilty to control others.
Really Don?
Dom, revelations are not given to be hidden but shared. They are not revealing anything new but bring to the open what had been has been long obscured, been there all the time. Any claiming to share a revelation should be aware that the 'new' is always treated with great suspicion, as it should be, and given careful exmination.
Thank you Dom for doing this examination with what I shared. You are perceived by me as a heavyweight in AFF and your experience and knowledge is great and should be appreciated by all if it isn't. You've defended Apostolic faith: salvation by grace through faith in what Jesus did on the Cross and the gospel of the new birth as first preached on the day of Pentecost. I too believe this faith and think that any who attempt to earn righteousness by any other means (good works alone) will be disappointed in the result.
My explanation of Ro2.12-16 has not ever been shared publicly and needed that examination for myself if for no one else. I've used Biblical principles to reveal what it says, which do not contradict the principles of salvation by grace and faith. They agree with the character of God who describes himself as merciful and gracious but never clearing the guilty, Ex34. My hope in sharing on AFF was that any of its weaknesses that I might be unaware of might be brought out. I haven't been convinced by the counter-arguments offered, which largely have been a interation of what I already believe in those who have heard the law/gospel. But Paul speaks of those who haven't heard, thus making many contrary arguments unapplicable to the case he/I presents. Plz, if you haven't done so, believe Paul when he speaks of those who have never heard.
I'm disappointed by the vitriol, the distortion of my arguments, smearing name-calling experienced here and expected otherwise from people who have great Bible knowledge who could have used their better abilities to refute instead of stooping.
-I explained that Paul says that these Gentiles show the work of the law in their hearts by what he says is nature, and not by the gospel. What was the counter argument to this?
-I explained that these Gentiles can't have heard the gospel because any preaching the gospel also have the law. Paul says these Gentiles don't have the law, therefore they also don't have the gospel and what is shown in their heart can't be written by the Spirit but another means, which the passage shows to be the conscience and are then considered fit for heaven. What counter argument disproved this?
-I explained that NT is a salvation by grace and faith which must be accompanied by necessary good works to be valid, making it a salvation by good works. There are those who attempt salvation by their own good works alone, which will fail. I received no response to this. Those who respond to the leading of the God-given conscience demonstrate obedience to a God-given method, the conscience, and this is not an attempt at salvation by good works alone.
-I showed the principle that those who haven't heard the Word don't get sin imputed and this principle is applicable to any who have not heard the gospel. What counter-argument was proffered?
-I showed that God adheres to the principle of precedence because if he doesn't it would make him appear to change his mind, making himself to appear wrong in the first instance. God set precedence during the age of conscience judging people by their consciences when they hadn't heard the Word (which was not yet given). The counter argument was there had to have been Word. While this thought is logically derived, it is only an assumption which contradicts Paul's statement that there was no law in the age of conscience.
-I argued that God can't appear to be seen sending right-living people to hell because that would make him appear to be unjust. This was countered with arguments that all are sinners and the only way to be saved is NT salvation, thus making God appear to be unjust in sending right living people to hell by rigid interpretation methods, which ignore portions of the Bible. This is contrary to what he showed of justice in the Age of conscience. If used once God can use it again. This does not describe the Jesus the Word shows and makes another God who is an unjust God. Plz stop and don't make God to appear to be unjust but one who will judge these Gentiles by their conscience in the same manner which he used, the conscience, in earlier times, in those who had not heard the law.
-I argued that the Word shows God using another method other than the gospel to allow entrance for babies to heaven. Thus God shows that the Gospel isn't the only measurement standard used, that he also uses other means. The counter argument given is that the babies are innocent. What news!! and what depth of a theological counter-argument!!
-I argued that God places an internal law in Man by the placing of the image of God in Man. Thus God places a law of sorts, which some respond to with a faith of sorts -- obedience. These demonstrate what is not an attempt to salvation by good works, but a response by faith to an internal God-given law of God. They demonstrate something similar to salvation by grace and faith. Perhaps someone could refresh my memory how this was responded to.
-I argued that the Bible doesn't show that the only way that changes come to the heart is by the gospel writing the law on the heart, but God has vast resources he uses to affect changes there other than only the gospel. Was this argument countered?
-I argued that it is believed by most Apostolics that those who aren't truly born again, ie,having only been baptized and not yet receiving the Holy Ghost, that these are expected to be seen in heaven because they have had their sins remitted. According to the strictness of the new birth theology presented by some in this thread, these will go to hell, though forgiven. But according to the Bible God doesn't judge only by compliance to the new birth, even in these who have heard the Word, because he is a just God. This argument I presented was met with silence. Silence is not usually a viable Biblical argument but done when nothing is available to replace it with.
Thus, Dom, with the resulting examination of God's revelation to me being examined (by AFF heavyweights more than one) and not countered with arguments weighty enough to dissuade otherwise I'm content to think that its Bible-truth. What I had offered for examination has been examined and my faith in it has been strengthened by it. In my original post I had suggested that the Lord will allow some entrance into heaven who have not been born again because they have not heard. Its good Bible exegesis to see this as true because it doesn't actually contradict Bible theology when understood properly.
In the vast history of religion there has ALWAYS been individuals like yourself.
They have a major problem with the groups they were raised around. The ministerial leadership, who tried to help, or didn’t help them. They view the God of the Bible as angry, His Gospel as unfair to Borneo head hunters who never were handed a Jack Chick tract. When the Apostle Paul was shown a vision (imagine that!) Jesus Christ Himself rebuking Saul of Tarsus, and then Jesus notifying Ananias to go to Paul. Paul got baptized, then he studied out what had transpired. He then went to the other apostles to check with them. Don, Paul wanted to know, Paul wanted to be corrected, and Paul was under subject of what he compiled through his visions and meeting with the other apostles.
You on the other hand just run it up the flag pole and watch who salutes it.
If we do as you ask “ examine your thoughts?” It becomes a hair pulling contest. Then all these posts later we are then informed by you that GOD SHOWED YOU ALL THIS?
Don, it’s nothing new, you aren’t the first and you won’t be the last. This nonsense is found everywhere from weight lifting to politics. This baloney just isn’t in religion. Don, you aren’t the only one who believes this nonsense. There is no new thing under the sun. You’ll probably drift off to hang out with some of the other individuals who believe in salvation by being really nice.
|
Linear Mode
