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.
Threaded Mode
