John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Does the One who sacrificed much to provide salvation easily condemn those who he has had a change of attitude with through their repentance, when they're unbaptized? How would this make God appear to be, if it's proclaimed "he fries those he has a forgiving attitude toward, saying 'they won't find a place in Heaven' because they lack the paid-in-full ceremonial act of baptism"? What is indicated if it is said 'a right-living man must have the ceremonial act to get into Heaven or end up in Hell'? Does it not indicate this: it is believed that right actions, along with God's change in attitude because of them, aren't good enough to provide entrance for those in the NT Age but were sufficient for those before the NT? It gave Enoch entrance. Why presume different judgment-outcomes when the different requirements of the different Ages are designed to arrive at the same point: right living? This doesn't ignore that 'living right in a Covenant' in any Age may have requirements (not demanded of those outside of a covenant). Those before the OT times lived by conscience, not covenant rules and were still Justified, right? Another question: Would it rightly be said that a Gentile in the OT Period, living right but uncircumcised, which was a commanded covenant sign for only the Jew, would go to Hell? No? And Col 2 shows baptism as part of the NT-equivalent to circumcision, suggesting that a lack of a baptism, commanded like circumcision was, using the same reasoning, doesn't necessarily destine one to Hell if they live right outside of covenant.

Is the Lord's judging of fitness-for-Heaven of a man in the NT Period seen as relying more on: a) his response to their obedience to commanded baptism; or more on: b) his response to right living via repentance? Or is it both each-and-every-time? What do these Ro 2 verses, addressed to NT readers, indicate but that the Lord is ascribing 'fit-for-Heaven' for those who it should be assumed have no formal religion and no ceremonial religious acts, leaving the impression he does rely more on the effects of right-living than on ceremonial/covenantal acts when judging man's rightness. (This doesn't overlook that baptism is a righteous act and those desiring Covenant need obeisance to Covenant rules.)

The Church's only Commission is to fully proclaim the full Gospel, as per Acts 2.38. Let's all strongly say 'Amen'. But unintended obstacles are created for those not yet baptized when a righteous zeal to tout its veracity results in saying 'those not experiencing it go to hell', thus hindering their acceptance of the New Birth message by creating an effect opposite to that intended by that zeal. Because, when those not yet Born Again but repentant, hearing what to them might feel like a negating/contradiction of what they've experienced through repentance, if in their limited understanding they also are inclined to negate, they will negate, not the repentance-experience with God that touched their heart but the new-to-them words coming from the touter which appears to contradict that experience, which words they have limited understanding of. Some brashly proclaim views looking like damnation 'of the unbaptized repentant' but we rarely see the same boldness in proclaiming Ro 2, which the Lord thought worthy to be Written.

The Church must not change but fully do what it is Commissioned to do, yet not portray incompletely or distort a full NT revelation found in Ro2 by condemning-to-hell those with partial obedience to the Gospel. God commands the ceremony, expects obedience, but partial obedience is not disobedience until it is intentional, right? How is it determined if this is true or false when intentional partial obedience is disobedience? To answer: Is Peter described as disobedient when not obeying the command to preach to the Gentiles till coerced in Ac 10, many years after Pentecost, though he had been told to do so, long before? It looks like the Lord forced Peter into obedience (by showing the Sheet Vision, yet not once but 3 times, then also adding other prods) though previously commanded; he who had long-held wrong unclean Gentile attitudes (Gal 2) and hesitancies (perhaps because of it), being negligent to obey in spite of the previous commands. Fit-for-hell-disobedient? None would think to say so. Isn't this then showing a difference between willful and negligent disobedience? King Saul was willful; Peter was negligent. Are there wrong attitudes like Peter's in present day Apostolics which need to be forced out, such as the damning of the unbaptized repentant? Yes.

The 'partial obedience is not disobedience' statement could/should be compared with what the earthly Justice System says to be true: 'Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when disobeying the law. You could/should have known'. Does God similarly judge, rigidly by the Letter of the Law because the Book has been published, and then say, 'You'll fry. Too bad for you that you didn't see that remission part'? Doesn't Ro 2 show that God doesn't judge rigidly by the Letter, not damning those who act righteous by conscience when not knowing the Letter; ie, unbaptized?

King David didn't die for the murder of Uriah, though Law/the Letter, according to some, demanded it. Some dare to question God when he didn't implement the death penalty here. This seems to show God's judging of things doesn't follow a rigid seemingly-limited interpretation of the Written that some hold. Some excuse this irregularity of not-going-by-the-Book by saying God judged by a higher law, Mercy. But does God have two sets of Law to pick-and-choose from as he pleases? The Lord oversees the interpretation/application of any given Law, at times giving guidance for its application with examples, as in David's experience. Could he also similarly guide in other circumstances? Is this the role of Ro 2, to show the error of the rigidity which some take in the application of the Remission Law as is wrongly thought in a rigid application of the Capital Punishment Law? But should all murderers receive mercy? Should all receive no mercy? Judges are to judge within the circumstances of each case. Should all the unbaptized repentants be described as disobedient when at least some could be described as negligent? Those who paint condemnation with broad strokes by damning all unbaptized repentants because they don't have remission, are wrongly selective in what they want to emphasize, showing us what? Not the whole counsel of God.

God cannot and will not go back on Jn 3.5. The 'Only Repentant' will not be considered as Born Again, fail to enter the Kingdom Covenant, and will not receive Heaven's Rewards reserved for the Church, but rewarded otherwise (less?). He gave his all, wanting all to receive full rewards, but disappointed, settling for less when necessary, but not sending-to-Hell right-living man. Those hearing and rejecting the full Gospel will face the Judge to explain why his will was rejected. What would their conscience say on That Day? What mercy can be expected for willful disobedience? Whatever he would judge, we aren't told but we rest knowing God will judge right.

I'm human. I have limited understanding. I may have left something out. I've exposed my thoughts for examination. If I'm in error, I want to know it.

[Amanah]

At the Exodus, the blood was on the doorposts, the Egyptians were drowned in the sea, and the pillar of fire lead them through the wilderness

At the tabernacle in the wilderness, the blood was shed on the altar, the blood was in the brazen laver where the priest washed, and the blood, was carried to and covered the mercy seat where the Spirit of God met them.

On the day of Pentecost Peter told them to repent and be baptized, and then receive the Spirit.

The blood, the water, and the Spirit, these three agree in one.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The blood, the water, and the Spirit, these three agree in one.

Yes this is absolutely true for someone in a covenant situation, which comes to people by the Word. But how would someone who is far from ever hearing the Word or a preacher ever hear about these 3? Yet Paul says that these who never hear the Word, by responding to their consciences about sin and living right, are considered as fit for heaven, apparently without the blood, water, Spirit of the covenant. They are rewarded in heaven but not with covenant rewards. You seem to miss the point of what I had written. Perhaps I need to re-write or perhaps a re-read would be in order.

You say Ro2 follows the pattern but quote nothing from Ro2 to support this statement, quoting from elsewhere instead. I'd be interested to see any Ro2 reference or something which relates directly to someone who hasn't heard the Word, which is what Paul refers to.

[Amanah]

Romans chapter two follows the pattern

*Repentance
*Spiritual circumcision (baptism) Col 2:11-12
*And the law written on your heart (Holy Spirit) Heb 8:8-12

[Amanah]

Paul wrote Romans to the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome. His purpose was to unite the Jewish and gentile Christians of Rome in the gospel.

Romans 2:4 - God's kindness leads us to repentance. Jew and Gentile alike.

Romans 2:15 - the gentile Christians have God's law written on their hearts by the infilling of the Spirit. Hebrews 8:10

Romans 2:29 - the gentile Christians have the spiritual circumcision of baptism. Col 2:11-12

The new covenant is for Jews and Gentiles alike.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Paul wrote Romans to the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome. His purpose was to unite the Jewish and gentile Christians of Rome in the gospel.

Romans 2:4 - God's kindness leads us to repentance. Jew and Gentile alike.

Romans 2:15 - the gentile Christians have God's law written on their hearts by the infilling of the Spirit. Hebrews 8:10

Romans 2:29 - the gentile Christians have the spiritual circumcision of baptism. Col 2:11-12

The new covenant is for Jews and Gentiles alike.

AGREED, that is the intent of the Gospel, what was accomplished by the Cross. In Ro2.12-16 Paul gives an example of a time when a Gentile, one who is without the Word, is seen as righteous because of following the nudges of the conscience. Because they haven't ever heard the Word they have had no opportunity to be born again, no chance to join the body Christ where Jew and Gentile are made one. Though never experiencing the new birth Paul implies that, come judgment day, their conscience will declare them righteous and they will enter heaven even though they weren't born again. Will they receive the same rewards a born again person? I don't think so. But they won't be sent to hell when seen as righteous just because they weren't born again. That's my point. Let us Apostolics not be too quick to say someone is going to hell because they've never heard of born again. Should every one get a chance to hear and obey Ac2.38? Yes. But not all do and not all will go to hell according to Ro2.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

AGREED, that is the intent of the Gospel, what was accomplished by the Cross. In Ro2.12-16 Paul gives an example of a time when a Gentile, one who is without the Word, is seen as righteous because of following the nudges of the conscience. Because they haven't ever heard the Word they have had no opportunity to be born again, no chance to join the body Christ where Jew and Gentile are made one. Though never experiencing the new birth Paul implies that, come judgment day, their conscience will declare them righteous and they will enter heaven even though they weren't born again. Will they receive the same rewards a born again person? I don't think so. But they won't be sent to hell when seen as righteous just because they weren't born again. That's my point. Let us Apostolics not be too quick to say someone is going to hell because they've never heard of born again. Should every one get a chance to hear and obey Ac2.38? Yes. But not all do and not all will go to hell according to Ro2.

Are you teaching that some can be saved by works without faith?
Even though the Bible says that without faith it impossible to come to God?

Hebrews 11:6
King James Version
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1615258]Are you teaching that some can be saved by works without faith?

You make a good observation which hadn't come to my mind. To give a concise answer and not avoid the question: the answer may be yes. But with explanation.

The hypothetical Gentile is without the Word of God. NT salvation is by faith in what the Lord has done for us on the Cross. Most receive this faith by hearing the good news. The hypothetical Gentile Paul refers to is without faith in the Word for NT salvation but responds to what happens within themselves. Their conscience and intellect tell them that some things are wrong and not to do them. This consciousness of sin is what I see Paul referring to as by nature, v14. Is this also how you understand this phrase? While this Gentile is without faith in the Word for NT salvation because they haven't heard, most people have a spark of faith telling them that there is a God. Giving the Gentile some latitude because of what is within most Men, they may not be completely without faith.

Paul says their conscience is clear, reading between the lines for the essence of what Paul is speaking of. It is conceivable that even today their are some who have never heard the Gospel. Also conceivable is the possibility that some by consience try to life a right(eous) life. How will God judge these on the last day? Paul implies that they will go to Heaven, even though they have lived in the NT times, yet aren't born again.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You make a good observation which hadn't come to my mind. To give a concise answer and not avoid the question: the answer may be yes. But with explanation.

The hypothetical Gentile is without the Word of God. NT salvation is by faith in what the Lord has done for us on the Cross. Most receive this faith by hearing the good news. The hypothetical Gentile Paul refers to is without faith in the Word for NT salvation but responds to what happens within themselves. Their conscience and intellect tell them that some things are wrong and not to do them. This consciousness of sin is what I see Paul referring to as by nature, v14. Is this also how you understand this phrase? While this Gentile is without faith in the Word for NT salvation because they haven't heard, most people have a spark of faith telling them that there is a God. Giving the Gentile some latitude because of what is within most Men, they may not be completely without faith.

Paul says their conscience is clear, reading between the lines for the essence of what Paul is speaking of. It is conceivable that even today their are some who have never heard the Gospel. Also conceivable is the possibility that some by consience try to life a right(eous) life. How will God judge these on the last day? Paul implies that they will go to Heaven, even though they have lived in the NT times, yet aren't born again.

Most people have a spark of faith telling them there is a God? "The demons also believe, and tremble." What about them?

MOST get faith by hearing the Word? Not all? Some get faith apart from hearing? Paul said faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Not most, some, a portion, etc.

Their conscience is clear? He states "their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another". Accusation? As in, they know they did wrong? Which means they sinned? Which means they stand in need of atonement? Remission of sin? But they don't have to have any of that because they just "can tell" when they do right and when they do wrong?

I honestly cannot see how you cannot see how contradictory your statements and conclusions are here.

Once again, these Gentiles in Romans 2 show the work of the "law written in the heart", and the law being written in the heart is an effect of the new covenant. Which means they must necessarily be Christians, not heathens. Even IF they were heathens, and Paul is simply saying they know right from wrong, that still doesn't solve the problem of them sinning, for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Therefore ALL need the Saviour, and NOBODY is getting eternal life apart from faith in Christ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

King David didn't die for the murder of Uriah, though Law/the Letter, according to some, demanded it. Some dare to question God when he didn't implement the death penalty here. This seems to show God's judging of things doesn't follow a rigid seemingly-limited interpretation of the Written that some hold. Some excuse this irregularity of not-going-by-the-Book by saying God judged by a higher law, Mercy. But does God have two sets of Law to pick-and-choose from as he pleases?

The law says this:

Deuteronomy 17:6-7 KJV
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. [7] The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

David could not have been put to death lawfully without two or more witnesses to a violation of the law of God worthy of the death penalty. David ordered Uriiah to the battle, the command was lawful, there was nothing illegal about it. He also ordered a military action that resulted in Uriah's death. Technically, this was also lawful in the strict sense of the legalities of what a king may order his soldiers to do. Obviously, all of it was UNLAWFUL because it all stemmed from David's violation of the 10th Commandment prohibiting the coveting of one's neighbor's wife. Yet, there could not lawfully be any public execution and sentencing of David for his crime because there simply weren't any qualified witnesses to a crime who could testify to it.

The same situation is observed in Cain's case. He certainly killed Abel in malice, and was guilty of murder. Yet where are the witnesses? There were none except for God. Therefore, nobody could execute judgment upon Cain LAWFULLY. So in allowing Cain to live, and in allowing David to live, God was not following "two different sets of laws" but was instead upholding His one divine Law.

Now some may, as you pointed out, feel that God is being partial. After all, He struck Onan dead by an immediate divine judgment, bypassing any need for human execution of law. Yet, God sees EVERY trespass committed by EVERYONE, and yet the vast majority of people are not struck dead by a bolt of lightning or suffer some other Providential calamity. Why? Because God's personal judgment of sin is declared to be reserved for the Day of Judgment. Thus sinners "get away with" stuff all day long, though their damnation slumbereth not and in due time they will fall. And yet on the other hand God clearly orders Providential events and even divine interventions to, at times, provide immediate relief to the aggrieved justice of His moral law. How is God justified in such cases? Because in such cases there are in fact two witnesses - the sinner's own conscience and God. Further, a temporal judgment does not always imply eternal judgment, for Providence has been known to take away the righteous as well as the wicked, though their eternal fates are clearly going to be different.

In any event, the case of David, as with Cain and indeed with the woman caught in adultery whom Jesus refused to condemn, are all examples where God's law was in fact being upheld. God's law requires two or more eyewitnesses to a capital offense in order to rightly pronounce sentence, and those cases did not meet the requirement of the law. Therefore, in those instances, the guilty person was not sentenced.