John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Amanah]

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.

Romans 4:16-17 says: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Galatians 3:29 says, "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise". In this verse, Paul describes the position of his Christian readers in Galatia, and explains that belonging to Christ means being considered Abraham's offspring and heirs of God's promise to Abraham.

Paul uses the metaphor of grafting to describe how Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God, becoming part of the covenant community.

Romans 11:17-24 says:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Perhaps a sport illustration will help -- street hocky + rink hockey comparison.

Streeet hockey is some kids with hockey sticks, a puck or ball, two clumps of snow with an imaginary line for a goal. But its great fun for those who like to compete and use there skills. Street hockey is played without rules, for the most part. Perhaps the only one is if the puck crosses the imaginary line -- its a goal. Not at all like rink hockey, where everyone has equipment, nets, lines in the ice, referees and penalty boxes. Invariably, in street hockey there will be a kid who'll cry out 'NO GOAL, it was offside'. But rink rules don't apply in street hockey. There's no such off-side rule because there's no blue line, no off-sides. Rink hockey has got a gazillion rules which everyone has got to follow or there's consequences. Street hockey you almost can do anything, as long as you're not malicious or over the top because even though there are no rules, there are still some almost undefined rules or the game couldn't be played.

Covenant relationship with Jesus has got rules which non-covenant relationship doesn't. Some will cry out that that person who got into heaven wasn't baptized or didn't believe in the Cross. But it still counts when there are no rules, as Paul says - they don't have law, and the puck crossed the line when they 'showed the work of the law in their heart'.

When Hagar was living with Abraham and Sara as a servant she came under their roof, she was covered by their covenant with God. When she was kicked out she lost the benefits, but still had a relationship with God of sorts, because the Word shows her as receiving a blessing of God while without a covenant.

Does anyone think that Gentiles sin when they aren't circumcised? Yet breaking rules for those in covenant. Does anyone living right but not participating in the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision go to hell? Would any righteous like Enoch, who, living in the same Age as Abraham, but not in the same covenant, would they go to hell uncircumsized? No, because the rules of Abraham's covenant didn't apply to anyone but Abraham. Covenant rules apply only to people in covenant and it is wrong to apply NT covenant rules to people who don't have the Gospel or the law. Any obeying the God-given conscience will be judged according to that conscience but not by Gospel laws which they have never heard. To think that God will d...mn such a one portrays God as an unjust judge who applies rules that aren't known. Ro5.13 says God does not impute sin when there is no law.

Does anyone think that NT rules are eternal rules, that they apply retroactively to any previous. No, they are not eternal but Age rules which apply only to the Age they are given in and only to those who hear them. God does not apply rules to those who don't hear then acording to the principle shown in Ro5.13. But does God have eternal rules which if those of any Ages break they suffer the consequences? Which eternal rules are seen in all Ages? We are made in the image of God and the eternal rules are found in the image. The conscience is part of the image and is in effect in all ages.

These Gentiles during the NT Age in Ro2 have relationship with God of sorts, even though they have no covenant and God can bless them. Every illustration or parable has got limits as to how far it can be used to show divine truth. Don't get to extremes with this one either.

Frustration has arisen in many commenters in this thread when the arguments they put forward, rules of the NT, were ignored and not responded to because it had been repeatedly stated that what Paul wrote of was for those who had no law, therefore were outside of covenant, and not replied to as not relevant. The frustration caused was not done intentionally.

Don, this is an Antichrist teaching you have here. Dispensationalism pretty much punched a hole in your view of Jesus Christ. Ages? Dispensations? Don, Jesus Christ came to finish, complete the Law. When He hung on the Cross He made the statement "it is finished!" He also told the one thief who proclaimed Jesus as the King, that the thief would be in the covenant that day. Cornelius was given a vision by God to send for the preacher. An Angel of the Lord told Phillip to go to an Ethiopian eunuch. God makes a way for those who earnestly seek Him, Hebrews 11:6 .

Your misunderstandings of the entire book of Romans (even the entire New Testament) causes you to think God is the enemy. If He doesn't hold a soteriology you can be comfortable with. The Bible isn't Wide World of Sports, and Jesus isn't Wayne Gretzky. John 3:36 says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them" That statement makes you want to throw Jesus off the job? Start looking for another god to take His place? Don, Ephesians 2:8–9 says basically, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this isn't by your own ability; it is the gift of God; it is not from having righteous behavior, so no one can brag that they made it to heaven on their own. But you don't see that. Religion messed you up. You are torqued over water baptism, or speaking in tongues as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost? So, if your MeeMaw, and Uncle Boudreaux never spoke in tongues or got baptized in Jesus name, you need some sort of New Light doctrine to give them access into heaven?

Don, this isn't something we have never heard before.

Hey, I get it, you just don't view Jesus as being fair. You want a Enochian doctrine which gain all your friends and relatives heavenly access based on their own righteousness. You have convinced yourself that the words of Paul in Romans 2:12–16 CONTRADICT the rest of the Bible. 5 verses put you in a doctrinal body bag. Therefore instead of you figuring out that you might be wrong. You are going to keep trying to convince others that your view of Romans 2:12–16 is all the World needs now? Buddy boy, you are a ecclesiastical train wreck.

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? Don, then why didn't Paul the Apostle of the Roman known World, use your theory concerning Romans 2:12–16? Can you even produce anywhere that Jesus taught as you claim? Can you find us where the Apostle Paul or Peter expounded on your ideas?

Listen, Don, you need to show us with other New Testament verses your teaching. The Stanley Cup sits on Fort Lauderdale beach. So, we have heard enough about Hockey.

Get to producing some New Testament verses to back up your view Romans 2:12–16.

Sadly, but, you are as lost as a potato

[donfriesen1]

As always, thx for your comments

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, this is an Antichrist teaching you have here. Dispensationalism pretty much punched a hole in your view of Jesus Christ. Ages? Dispensations? Whoah, Whoah here Evang.B. You elsewhere in this post talk of Jesus fulfilling the Law. Does that not speak of a change of dispensations, of moving from the Age of the Law to the Age of the new Covenant? Plz provide a definition of Age or Dispensation which would not contradict what you say about Jesus bringing to an end the law.Don, Jesus Christ came to finish, complete the Law. AGREED. When He hung on the Cross He made the statement "it is finished!" He also told the one thief who proclaimed Jesus as the King, that the thief would be in the covenant that day. Did Jesus say the thief would be in the Kingdom or with him in Paradise? The thief was not in the New Covenant Kingdom which started on the day of Pentecost, but in the old if in any. Cornelius was given a vision by God to send for the preacher. AGREED. An Angel of the Lord told Phillip to go to an Ethiopian eunuch. God makes a way for those who earnestly seek Him Any would be a fool to argue against this, but to assume what happens in these 2 examples would necessarily similarly happen to all who haven't the Gospel would make a large assumption no one but God can say with certainty. God gave the responsibility to share the Gospel to the church but occasionally goes over the heads of those he has delegated this too. To assume he would always do so would question why he even delegated the job to the church in the first place. Why not use the methods described with every last person on earth. Certainly he got the resources if he should so choose. , Hebrews 11:6 .

Your misunderstandings of the entire book of Romans (even the entire New Testament) causes you to think God is the enemy. ??? If He doesn't hold a soteriology you can be comfortable with. Not a sentence.The Bible isn't Wide World of Sports, and Jesus isn't Wayne Gretzky. I chuckle when I read this. Thx for the humour.John 3:36 says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them" That statement makes you want to throw Jesus off the job? Start looking for another god to take His place? I'm entirely satisfied with Jesus. I believe he's on the job providing NT salvation for all those who've heard the Gospel. He also provides access to heaven for those who have not heard. Don, Ephesians 2:8–9 says basically, for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this isn't by your own ability; it is the gift of God; it is not from having righteous behavior, so no one can brag that they made it to heaven on their own. But you don't see that. Religion messed you up.Apostolic religion messed me up? Is tht what you're saying? You are torqued over water baptism, or speaking in tongues as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost? So, if your MeeMaw, and Uncle Boudreaux never spoke in tongues or got baptized in Jesus name, you need some sort of New Light doctrine to give them access into heaven?

Don, this isn't something we have never heard before.

Hey, I get it, you just don't view Jesus as being fair. By the strictness of your new birth theology any who are not born again are destined to hell. This would put babies in hell. It would put right living people who have never heard the Gospell in hell. Where is the fairness you speak of seen in your theology? My theology on the Gospell/Ro2.12-16 looks a lot fairer. You want a Enochian doctrine which gain all your friends and relatives heavenly access based on their own righteousness. You have convinced yourself that the words of Paul in Romans 2:12–16 CONTRADICT the rest of the Bible. I actually see them as complementary, not contradictory. 5 verses put you in a doctrinal body bag. Therefore instead of you figuring out that you might be wrong. Not a sentenceYou are going to keep trying to convince others that your view of Romans 2:12–16 is all the World needs now? The world needs the full Gospel, the world needs Jesus. To say I've said other than this is putting words in my mouth..Buddy boy, you are a ecclesiastical train wreck.

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.This verse is written to those who have already heard the Gospel. Can we agree that those of Ro2.12-16 haven't? Paul shows that those who not hear aren't judged as if they had. Ro5.13. He says they don't have their sin imputed to them when they haven't heard the law. Thus this is not a fair comparison, to compare those who have heard with those who Paul says, Ro2.14, have not heard.


But, even though you read those words you say Romans 2:12–16 negates those words? The Scripture should be read as a whole and verses which appear to contradict the sense of the whole given attention-in-understanding, to reconcile seeming contradictions. The clear teaching for those desiring to enter NT covenant is the whole. The whole says that faith in Jesus blood produces justification for sin by means of obedience to the Gospel message; repentance and the new birth. The seeming contradiction of Ro2.12-16 is that it shows the entrance to heaven by the means of a clean conscience. Reconciling these two seeming contradictory concepts is necessary. When the principle of 'not imputing sin when the Word is not heard' is applied, it reconciles these supposed contradictions.Don, then why didn't Paul the Apostle of the Roman known World, use your theory concerning Romans 2:12–16? Can you even produce anywhere that Jesus taught as you claim? Can you find us where the Apostle Paul or Peter expounded on your ideas? You make a very important relevant observation. Is that a fair question? Just because God would make one comment of any concept by one man, isn't evidence that others didn't believe it also, when they may have even it isn't evidenced by verses doing so. It is unfair to say they wouldn't when they could have. Luke's description of Cornelius implies that a prominent NT figure, one who travelled with Paul, thought him righteous before he was born again. It implies that he thought as how Paul did, when Pauls shows he thought those without law showing clean hearts were fit for heaven (implied so in Ro2).


Listen, Don, you need to show us with other New Testament verses your teaching. The Stanley Cup sits on Fort Lauderdale beach. Ouch, Canadians are still crying. Did you have to be so brutally honest to insult us. We may never recover from that one. So, we have heard enough about Hockey.

Get to producing some New Testament verses to back up your view Romans 2:12–16. The following shows, at least, that I haven't been sleeping while reading the Word and readers will judge whether they are AntiChristial or scripturally founded arguments will be determined by them:

1. I've already produced evidence that a principle that God used, Ro5.13, that those without the law in Ro2.12-16 are not judged as if they had it.
2. I've shown the principle of those who lived before the law, ie Enoch, were judged righteous, using the same standard that Paul uses -- the conscience in judging those in Ro2.12-16 as righteous.
3. I've shown that the image of God in man is that which produces the conscience and is an internal law apart from the Law/Gospel, which God will use to judge people by at the White throne.
4. I've shown innocent babies judged by God as righteous enough without the new birth, to go to heaven by another standard other than the Gospel. If God uses a standard other than the new birth to judge these babies as going to heaven, it shows he uses other standards than just the new birth. I'd contend that the conscience is another standard he uses and the Gospel isn't the only standard. (Oops, no scripture to back this claim but I might be able to sneak this one in by popular consensus, eh? or does your theology send babies to hell.)
5. I've shown that the Lord does not judge today contrary to his past judgments, contradicting himself thereby, that he abides by precedents set in the past; ie, if he judged those in the past (for example Enoch, a non-Jew non-Gentile) as righteous by the conscience that he can also judge today by the conscience.
6. I've shown these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 can't be showing the work of the law in their heart by the Gospel because, anyone carrying the Gospel also has law. Paul says these have no law; therefore they can't have heard the Gospel.
7. I've shown that these Gentiles show the work of the law in their hearts as coming about because of what Paul calls nature and not as coming about by the law written in their hearts by the Spirit. If they don't have the law then they don't have the Gospel and they don't have word written on their heart by the Spirit.
8. I've shown those, who assume that because those in the Age of Conscience walked with God that they then had to have had the Word, are plainly contradicting what Paul clearly says when he says they didn't have the Word, because the law came by Moses.
9. I've shown that NT saints, ie Luke, may have had thoughts similar to mine, because he describes as righteous this man who isn't yet born again,Ac10.2.
10. I've shown that God is unlimited in his abilities and can produce changes in the heart by means other than just the Gospel and this doesn't contradict/deny that the Gospel does this too.
11. I've shown these who have no law responding to a God-given 'law' the conscience, which shows faith in the God who places it in all Men, that they recognise the God of creation through this faith. They do not make attempts at salvation by good works alone but respond to God's way, that which God has placed within.
    Read any previous posts for a fuller explanation of mine.

Sadly, but, you are as lost as a potato

This potatoe is having lots of fun sharing what God has shown him by the Word but then maybe its the devil's interpretation. What say you reader? Burned-black potatoe or delicious fries?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Whoah, Whoah here Evang.B. You elsewhere in this post talk of Jesus fulfilling the Law. Does that not speak of a change of dispensations, of moving from the Age of the Law to the Age of the new Covenant? Plz provide a definition of Age or Dispensation which would not contradict what you say about Jesus bringing to an end the law.

No Don, what I'm referring to is the nonsense of Dispensational teaching. Which you have obviously drank to its bitter dregs.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Did Jesus say the thief would be in the Kingdom or with him in Paradise? The thief was not in the New Covenant Kingdom which started on the day of Pentecost, but in the old if in any.

Really Don? So, Jesus was telling the thief that this day the thief would be in a garden planting tomatoes? The thief asked Jesus "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." For you that means zero! Also you see Paradise as some guy drinking beer and watching hockey with his tuque pulled over his ears. A patch of dirt where you plant lilies. Or, most likely you see paradise as heaven, or the grave. When actually Jesus is referring to the only paradise of any Biblical importance. EDEN! Meaning what man once lost is regained by the death, burial, and resurrection of the Christ. Thief asks "will you remember me when you come into your KINGDOM!!!" Jesus answers follows the question. Therefore the garden of Eden is the symbol of His Kingdom, which is the covenant of eternal life restored to Adam.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Any would be a fool to argue against this, but to assume what happens in these 2 examples would necessarily similarly happen to all who haven't the Gospel would make a large assumption no one but God can say with certainty.

Don, religion really baked your cookies,

Don, no assumption on my part. I'm just giving you Bible, book, chapter, and verse. Two examples? You have zero examples for your Antichrist "get out of Jail free" doctrine. You are the one who believes that if God doesn't do it your way, He is a bad guy. But God gives us the examples in the Book of Acts that He will reach out and touch the hearts and minds of RIGHTEOUS SEEKER. Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Where do you have Jesus, he apostles, or Paul teaching that the righteous enter heaven without the blood of Christ?
Where is this teaching found in the Gospels, and the other epistles?

I'm waiting.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apostolic religion messed me up? Is tht what you're saying?

No, religion messed you up. That is what I'm saying. Nothing Apostolic about it all. Because you cannot provide me anything which the Apostles or Jesus Christ Himself taught as you believe Romans 2:12–16 to mean.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

By the strictness of your new birth theology any who are not born again are destined to hell.

Here you go again. Jesus is bad, because Don, doesn't like the Gospel.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This would put babies in hell.

Babies are born innocent as far as the BIBLE is concerned. Hence we are told he that trusts and is baptized will be saved, but he who doesn't trust will be damned. Therefore the dead bodies of infants aren't baptized as the Western Roman church is known to do. You can only teach what is provided for through the scripture. The Bible doesn't put a man to death for causing a miscarriage, he is to pay the husband a fine. Only if the pregnant woman dies is the husband to require the death penalty. Exodus 21:22-25

I said all that to say this, infants are innocent and have no possible way to even discern right from left. To bring up the baby or the brain damage is not going to negate the Gospel and that we MUST BE BORN AGAIN.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It would put right living people who have never heard the Gospell in hell.

Babies are innocent, there is no such thing as right living people. There is saved and unsaved. Biblically.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Where is the fairness you speak of seen in your theology?

Here you go again Jesus is unfair. Why is He unfair Don? Because Jesus didn't teach Romans 2:12–16 as you do? Jesus said to climb up into the sheepfold and bypass the door who is "Jesus" is being a criminal. Jesus also taught that the man who came to the wedding and didn't have the proper garments was to be thrown out into the outer abyss, where they would hear him suffer in great pain. Jesus, you know the one the New Testament was about? Jesus didn't teach Romans 2:12–16 like you. Jesus preached the same as Paul. Yet, you wrest Paul's words as you do the other scripture, sadly it will be to your own destruction. You present to me Romans 5:13 totally out of context. Because at the end of the chapter it says, "as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life BY Jesus Christ our Lord." You can't teach doctrine by cherry picking verses out of context of what the writer is trying to say to fit your doctrine. Look, find where Jesus and the apostles taught that there was another way other than the Gospel to gain salvation.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The Scripture should be read as a whole and verses which appear to contradict the sense of the whole given attention-in-understanding, to reconcile seeming contradictions.

Don, this actually doesn't work with what you are teaching. For the simple reason you have a huge amount of scripture refuting your present interpretation of the book of Romans. Verses which appear to contradict? You haven't attempted to even to explain how Jesus, the apostles, and even Paul in the rest of his epistles don't hold the same interpretation as you do. it's like you are stuck in the sunk cost fallacy. Dude, it's ok, let go and let God. We will welcome you with open arms, it's ok to believe the Bible. Jesus has it all under control.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The clear teaching for those desiring to enter NT covenant is the whole. The whole says that faith in Jesus blood produces justification for sin by means of obedience to the Gospel message; repentance and the new birth. The seeming contradiction of Ro2.12-16 is that it shows the entrance to heaven by the means of a clean conscience. Reconciling these two seeming contradictory concepts is necessary. When the principle of 'not imputing sin when the Word is not heard' is applied, it reconciles these supposed contradictions.

Yet, the contradiction was clearly explained to you. Jesus throws out the man who wasn't wearing a wedding garment. Jesus said the road to eternal life was narrow, and the gate was almost closed, and few would even find it. Don, how about this bummer, Jesus warns all those who misinterpret the book of Revelation or adds to it, will be blotted out of the book of life. Anyway, maybe Jesus will explain it to you before He casts you into a lake of fire. But, Don, you are misinterpreting Paul's words in Romans. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You make a very important relevant observation. Is that a fair question? Just because God would make one comment of any concept by one man, isn't evidence that others didn't believe it also, when they may have even it isn't evidenced by verses doing so.

Don, sorry pal, but you lose. Don, you asked me about Apostolic Religion messing you up. Let me explain something. Apostolic means to do as the apostle did. That can only be found in the Bible. Religion, on the other hand adds to the Bible. It gives you sort of an ecclesiastical artistic license. You believe Jesus is unfair, and totally messed up for throwing people into a lake of fire. They go because they didn't care. They cared more about how they felt about God. They care so much about that, they make Him into their image. Just like the Rabbinical Judeans in Jesus' time. They had their feelings about what Christ should be, how the Kingdom of God should come. Yep, just like YOU. They even came out with their own sacred books. The Talmud, the Koran, the Vedic writings, the Tripitaka.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is unfair to say they wouldn't when they could have.

Don, you are the judge of God. You judge God to be unfair because He doesn't fit what you believe to be "fair." That's just too bad. It is what it is. You are like the rich young ruler (although you aren't young) you are upset at what Christ taught. Yet, where you aren't like the rich young ruler, he walked away filled with sorrow. You on the other hand, want to stick around and just change the Gospel so it's "fair."

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

My theology on the Gospell/Ro2.12-16 looks a lot fairer.

I bet it does to you, Don, you can't be helped. Jesus' teachings are unfair. When He cursed Jerusalem He was being unfair. When they were compassed with armies that laid Jerusalem even with the ground, He was unfair.

Yet, the truth is that sincere hearts will always hear His voice. God will always send a Peter, and Phillip to find a Cornelius and an Ethiopian.

That's fair.

That's God's power.

You probably don't even believe that God still speaks through people or performs the miraculous.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

As always, thx for your comments This potatoe is having lots of fun sharing what God has shown him by the Word but then maybe its the devil's interpretation. What say you reader? Burned-black potatoe or delicious fries?

One more thing.

Don, God didn't show you the mess you been telling us in this thread.

Do yourself a favor, don't say God showed you. Because logically you'll end up in cognitive dissonance. Religiously you can't accept anything contrary to what GOD SHOWED YOU. That's how cult leaders come to be, or preachers end up going into all kinds of whacky thoughts concerning a plethora of topics. I'm not saying that God cannot show something out of His word. I believe that whole heartedly. But when God is speaking to someone it's going to line up with His scriptures. It's going to work out, and He'll even send you a Peter or Phillip. But God didn't speak to you concerning your misinterpretation of Romans. You also aren't a Peter, or a Phillip. I'll leave you with this, Hebrews 5:12, which says, "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God"

[Esaias]

Don says Romans 2 seems to contradict the rest of the Bible. So, to resolve the contradiction, he makes Romans 2 to be AN EXCEPTION to the rest of the Bible.

But observe, that is not a reconciling of contradiction. It simply maintains the contradiction as is. It is in other words to argue "The Bible teaches X, but Romans 2 teaches NotX, so therefore X and NotX."

That's nonsense.

The truth is, Don says Romans 2 contradicts other passages because Don misunderstands Romans 2. It is his INTERPRETATION which contradicts, not Paul's statement. I pointed out repeatedly that Paul himself explains what he says, and thus there is no contradiction.

But that contradicts Don's opinion on what "fair" is. See? Don comes to Romans 2 ALREADY BELIEVING NotX, he ALREADY BELIEVES that works can save a man, and he finds Romans 2 and claims it supports his view.

His view is NOT based on Romans 2. Rather it is based on the a priori assumption that salvation is a matter of LAW and JUSTICE ("fairness") instead of GRACE and MERCY. Therefore people can earn the right to eternal life WITHOUT BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.

And his a priori assumption itself is due to him not understanding the basics of Bible teaching about WHY Jesus came and WHAT salvation is. Instead he is a believer in modern western evangelical "Judeo-Christianity, Oneness Pentecostal variation 2.0" (tm) where sin is a disease, sinners are victims, heaven is the happiness hotel, and God is a medical doctor required by LAW to heal the soul-diseased.

But the Bible truth is that sin is crime, sinners are criminals, God is the Governor who offers a PARDON for the criminals upon condition of repentance and faith, motivated by GRACE.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

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? You even sign off your initial post with these last words “If I'm in error, I want to know it.”

Really Don?

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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don says Romans 2 seems to contradict the rest of the Bible. So, to resolve the contradiction, he makes Romans 2 to be AN EXCEPTION to the rest of the Bible.

But observe, that is not a reconciling of contradiction. It simply maintains the contradiction as is. To do anything other than attempt to reconcile might be tampering with God's Word. What other method might you suggest to do, other than reconciliation explanations? What? It is in other words to argue "The Bible teaches X, but Romans 2 teaches NotX, so therefore X and NotX." It is an explanation of seeming contradictory concepts, to reconcile what appears to be a contradiction when we know God does contradict himself. The gospel is right and what is right about Ro2.12-16 is also right. But any wishing to not see it so, have the ability to say it doesn't, whether or not doing so is right or wrong.


That's nonsense. OK, whatever you say. Attempts at reconciling seeming discrepancies are always nonsense, right?

The truth is, Don says Romans 2 contradicts other passages because Don misunderstands Romans 2. It is his INTERPRETATION which contradicts, not Paul's statement. I pointed out repeatedly that Paul himself explains what he says, and thus there is no contradiction. Paul says what he calls nature has brought a showing of the works of the law in the heart in these Gentiles who do not have the law. Readers of the passage will understand nature to mean the conscience. Esaias will say that 'the works of the law in the heart' is the work of the Spirit. But Paul says that these have no law, meaning they also don't have the gospel which would give the Spirit. Any preacher of the gospel also has the law,right?. Therefore these can't have the gospel because any having the gospel also have the law. Therefore, because they don't the law, they also don't have the gospel and the Spirit. To deny this or contradict Paul on this results in a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the passage. Will you not agree with Paul? Do you continue to say that these have the Gospel or do you sy that someone who has the gospel doesn't necessarily have the law also?

Take a step back, agree with Paul that these don't have the gospel/law, though it is clear that others who have heard the gospel do indeed show the law written on their heart. Would you deny that God has many abilities and methods to produce changes in the heart and continue to say that the Gospel is the only way possible for this to be effected?

Follow and agree with Paul's use of the principle shown in Ro5.13, which is : when someone doesn't have the Word, then God does not impute their sin. This principle is not only applicable to those who lived during the time when there was no law, commonly called the age of conscience, but is a principle for all ages. These here in Ro2.12-16 have that principle at work in them, even though they live in the Church Age. Would you deny that the principle of non-imputation is working in them when they don't have the law/gospel? Agree with Paul that those who don't have the law/gospel aren't judged as if they do.

What is in effect, for these who do not have the law/gospel, is what you've described as God's 'eternal moral law' which I agree with and I see as being placed in Man by God in the conscience when Man is made in the image of God. Would you deny that the image of God/conscience is in Man, bringing about the work of the law shown in the heart, when Paul indicates this? God uses the conscience/moral guide he has instituted to judge these as righteous. God then doesn't d...mn the one who yields to a God given conscience, allowing it to do the thing God intended, when he has made the conscience which leads them to live right. You may call this responding to what God provides as salvation by good works, because that is your right. But you have the right to be wrong. It is not salvation by self-efforts-alone but responding to what God has instituted - the conscience.

The conscience is part of Man in all ages, doing its work as a 'law of God of sorts'. God has not annulled its effects in Man in any age and this 'law of God of sorts' will be used to judge all at the Great judgment, including those who have not heard the law, nor heard the gospel. God will declare some righteous and not impute their sin when they have not heard the law/gospel and judge right and offer them a place in heaven. The non-imputation of sin is a principle applied to any who has not heard the Word in any age, not just the age of conscience. Therefore Paul shows these in Ro2.12-16, who have not heard the gospel will be given a place in heaven, though not born again, by their clear conscience. The principle which was in effect during the age of conscience, in non-imputation of sin in those who have not heard, has not been annulled and remains in effect in all ages. Would you deny that Paul shows the use of this principle in Ro5.13? Do you agree that this principle is in effect for any age?

To deny the power and preaching of the gospel would be foolish, for that is God's plan for Man during the church age. Many times I've said something similar in this thread. But not all hear the gospel and a just God does not d...mn those who have never heard but who live under the guidance of God's eternal moral law of the conscience. Any who desire to describe these as attempting to earn justification by good works will then need to contend with God and the ways he judges by the conscience. What say you Esaias, does God ever judge anyone by the conscience? My preference is to agree with God. If God only judges Man by the Gospel on the Day of Judgment, as the standard to determine entrance or not to heaven, then why does he use the conscience on the day of judgment? Why does he have two measurement standards -- the gospel and the conscience? This shows us that he doesn't only use the gospel. To say he only uses the gospel would be to deny that the the Lord uses the conscience. Do you deny that God uses the standard of the conscience to judge?


In the age of conscience, when there was no law, he must have used some other standard to judge the world with the greatest method to date, the flood. To say that it was the Word contradicts Paul who says there was no law at this time.

What standard does God use to judge innocent babies entrance to heaven? Its not the new birth though these innocent humans died during the church age, but described by Paul as 'in Adam all die'. They are dead to God because of Adam's sin, needing rebirth, yet enter heaven as innocent without the new birth. He has another measurement method to allow these who have never heard/understood the gospel/law. Do you deny that these aren't born again but gain entrance to heaven by another standard than the new birth? Would you also deny a man described as righteous in Ac10.2, that he would not have been seen as fit for heaven as not born again, when dying before he hears the gospel from Peter? Does God d...mn righteous people who haven't heard the gospel?

If God doesn't impute sin in those in the age of conscience then he will not impute sin in the church age in those living right who haven't heard the gospel or it shows him acting against precedents of justice he had previously used. God cannot be shown to judge people in similar circumstances using different standards because that would show him as having respect of persons, and also as changing his mind about past methods, meaning "I must have been wrong about that other time". He judged Enoch by conscience because Enoch lived in a time when there was no law. Does God make mistakes? Does God change his standards of judgment of people in similar circumstances?

What of those who have been baptized but haven't received the Holy Ghost. They don't meet the definition of those who are born again. Does God send these to hell because they aren't born again though have had their sins remitted? According to the strictness of the theology that is espoused in this thread, these will go to hell. I'd rather see the many who are is this situation judged by another standard that is shown in the scripture to let others into heaven who are not born again. Do you Esaias d.mn these who are baptized to hell?

These Bible facts and principles must be reconciled with the gospel scriptures which seemingly show something contradictory. But God's Word does not contradict itself unless not understood properly. Rightly dividing the Word of truth results in seeing both as true, because both are the Word and both rely on his principles. Those who quote NT theological scripture attempting to show error in my theological views of Ro2.12-16 are attempting to discredit what Paul plainly shows, resulting in their attempts being seen as fighting against God's Word. God does not contradict himself unless misunderstood in some aspect.

To quote many scriptures about the new covenant, which certainly are the Word of God and rightly apply to those in the new covenant, confuses two separate topics: those who have heard with those who have never heard. The Word shows God does not judge those who have not heard the same as those who have heard. Do you deny this principle seen in Ro5.13? Plz say you agree with Paul on this because the stance you take makes me think you don't. God believes in both, this and the gospel.


But that contradicts Don's opinion on what "fair" is. See? Don comes to Romans 2 ALREADY BELIEVING NotX, he ALREADY BELIEVES that works can save a man, and he finds Romans 2 and claims it supports his view.

His view is NOT based on Romans 2. Rather it is based on the a priori assumption that salvation is a matter of LAW and JUSTICE ("fairness") instead of GRACE and MERCY. Therefore people can earn the right to eternal life WITHOUT BELIEVING THE GOSPEL.

And his a priori assumption itself is due to him not understanding the basics of Bible teaching about WHY Jesus came and WHAT salvation is. Instead he is a believer in modern western evangelical "Judeo-Christianity, Oneness Pentecostal variation 2.0" (tm) where sin is a disease, sinners are victims, heaven is the happiness hotel, and God is a medical doctor required by LAW to heal the soul-diseased.

But the Bible truth is that sin is crime, sinners are criminals, God is the Governor who offers a PARDON for the criminals upon condition of repentance and faith, motivated by GRACE.

AMEN, salvation by grace through faith and obedience to the gospel. None who respond with obedience to the gospel are ever characterized as trying to earn their salvation by this obedience, though obedience is certainly a good work. Why the desiring of any to describe any who responds to the God-given conscience as salvation by good works may never be known, but these two scenarios are similar and should both have the same label attached - salvation by grace and faith.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

AMEN, salvation by grace through faith and obedience to the gospel. None who respond with obedience to the gospel are ever characterized as trying to earn their salvation by this obedience, though obedience is certainly a good work. Why the desiring of any to describe any who responds to the God-given conscience as salvation by good works may never be known, but these two scenarios are similar and should both have the same label attached - salvation by grace and faith.

Don, Jesus never taught that His church would be saved by their conscience.
You teach that men can be saved by their good works alone without Christ. God stopped Paul on the road to Damascus. God tells Ananias to go to a man who was arresting saints in the church. God spoke to Cornelius to send for Peter. God tells Phillip to give a Bible study to an Ethiopian. Sadly, all these situations are nothing more than stories to you. You believe God is messed up theologically as you are. Your soteriology is based on your view of God. That He isn’t a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

You never wanted anyone to question your teaching. To examine your thoughts. You just wanted to post this mess and find someone to lap it up.

Good God in Zion!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, this is a video about an elderly gentleman like yourself. Maybe you should take the time to view this material. Then contemplate this on the tree of woe.