John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

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.

It seems to be well known by everyone here except you, for some reason.

You literally said "yes" when you were asked if you were teaching salvation by works. You have been saying over and over that a "right living person" will not go to hell even if they never even heard of Jesus, because (key word there) they are "doing right".

You have completely missed the boat on the difference between justification by faith and justification by works. You also are ignoring the fact that your view of sin is unbiblical, that you see it as some kind of disease (scurvy, anyone?) rather than as criminality. Even though it has been pointed out to you over and over again. Brother Benincasa is right, you did not want a discussion about your ideas, you just wanted someone to agree with you.

[donfriesen1]

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.

Dom and others: I'll now say that I drink the Kool-Aid of Ro2.12-16. I'll now say that I'll swallow it hook, line and sinker what has been described by some as AntiChrist doctrine. But I think I'm on solid Scriptural ground. I'm doing fine. The pool water is warm - honest, I kid you not, its not cold - jump in too and enjoy a swim.

Thx for your contributions on this thread.They have helped solidify what God had shown me. You may not want to believe what Paul shows in Ro -- that is the liberty God gives, we can choose to be wrong. Any reading what Paul wrote will come to a similar conclusion because that's the reason why God gives his Word of Truth; its to bring Light.

Faith in scriptures doesn't indicate that we discard all logical reasoning. It tells us God is just to judge people living right as fit for heaven. When thoughts like this enter in, they press for scriptural backing indicating the same. Ro2.12-16 and 5.13 provides the foundation to the thought that God judges right living people outside of the bounds of comparison to the new birth. Some people who have never heard the gospel will enter into heaven by other God-given standards, one being the conscience.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Faith in scriptures doesn't indicate that we discard all logical reasoning. It tells us God is just to judge people living right as fit for heaven.

No it doesn't. Logic does not tell us any such thing. I challenge you to prove BY LOGIC that "God is just to judge people living right as fit for heaven".

Logic tells us the bible is consistent, if it is indeed the Word of God. Logic tells us that when sin is defined as crime, then sinners are criminals who are guilty of punishment. Logic tells us that escaping the punishment is not just except under conditions of PARDON (grace), because to fail to punish criminals is unjust, UNLESS a Pardon can be granted that would NOT promote anarchy.

Logic tells us that if the Bible says all are guilty of sin, then all are under sentence. Logic tells us that if all are guilty, then NONE can be acquitted of charges on the basis of being innocent ("living right"). Logic also tells us that no amount of post-criminal "right living" can make amends for previously committed crimes. No amount of doing good can repair the damage done to justice and the government of God which has occurred because of crime.

Logic tells us that a thief and robber who then after his career of crime decides to start orphanages and feed the homeless is therefore not guilty of thieving and robbing. Logic also tells us that the above mentioned reformed thief does not thereby EARN a RIGHT to a pardon, even though reformation of life and character may be (and should be) CONDITIONS for receiving a pardon.

Logic tells us that when the Bible declares NOBODY is justified by their DEEDS, but ONLY through faith in Christ, then it must be true, and the opposite must be false (that anyone can be justified or receive eternal life because of their right living or deeds apart from faith in Jesus Christ).

Logic tells us you have not thought your doctrine through logically.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No it doesn't. Logic does not tell us any such thing. I challenge you to prove BY LOGIC that "God is just to judge people living right as fit for heaven".

Logic tells us the bible is consistent, if it is indeed the Word of God. Esaias questions the Word. If I would use the same tactics as you do in twisting what others say to disparage a right opinion of them, then I would say that you express doubts that the Bible is the Word of God, because you say if it is indeed the Word of God. But I prefer not to use smear tactics such as these. Any using them add nothing substantial to arguments made and do so because they have nothing else substantial to say. Sadly these smear tactics are borrowed by some in this AFF thread from the underhanded methods used by polititians who even lie in wanting to get an advantage. They should not be used in a discussion of the Bible. Any reading AFF would know that Esaias believes the Bible is God's infallible Word. But I don't want to be seen as speaking for you, as some do of me in this thread. I should not have my words distorted by others but be allowed to speak for myself. Logic tells us that when sin is defined as crime, then sinners are criminals who are guilty of punishment. Logic tells us that escaping the punishment is not just except under conditions of PARDON (grace), because to fail to punish criminals is unjust, UNLESS a Pardon can be granted that would NOT promote anarchy. TRUE. Logic tells us that if A=B and if B=C then A also equals C. 1) If God does not impute sin to those in the age of conscience because they haven't heard the Word (Ro5.13), then logic tells us he will not impute sin to those who have not heard the Word (gospel) in another age. If a principle is true in one age it is true in another age. Are all condemned in sin? Yes, except for those who respond to God's provision. Do all hear the gospel, God given-method of pardon? No. God does not judge those who have heard the same as those who have not heard. He is just. He was just in the age of conscience and he will be just in the church age. 2) Logic tells us that if God finds a place in heaven for innocent babies, by judging them by a standard other than the new birth, it shows God as also using other means than just the gospel, as a measurement standard. This opens the possibility that God will use another standard, that Ro2.12-16 is showing God only using the conscience (not the Word) as a standard to judge these by, in those who Paul says have not heard the Word (which includes the Gospel). Does a just God send babies to hell when they have never heard the Word, nor are born again. What does your logic tell you? Why can't the same logic be applied to other humans? Paul says it is. The rigidity shown in applying NT theology in condemning all to hell who haven't obeyed the gospel distorts what the Word shows us -- God doesn't only use the gospel but also uses other methods. Park the rigidity and agree that Paul also shows another God-given method. 3) If it is impossible for God to ever be wrong, because his omniscience and fore-knowledge prevent it, then he was just/right in judging people like Enoch as righteous by their conscience (who lived in a time when there was no law and may have followed the dictates of the conscience), and then he would also be just/right in judging any other in another age the same way when their circumstances show them (when they are shown as never, ever having heard the Word) as being in the same circumstance as Enoch -- living right but without the Word, ruled by the conscience (and what the intellect tells us is wrong) and would be judged the same as Enoch -- righteous and fit for heaven. Logic tells us a just God does not proclaim one righteous over here and proclaim a similar person over there as unrighteous, even though they are separated by time. The time is irreleavant to God. Doing otherwise would be unjust and show God as unjust.


Logic tells us that if the Bible says all are guilty of sin, then all are under sentence. AMENLogic tells us that if all are guilty, then NONE can be acquitted of charges on the basis of being innocent ("living right"). AMEN, none are innocent but judges do acquit. Logic also tells us that no amount of post-criminal "right living" can make amends for previously committed crimes. No amount of doing good can repair the damage done to justice and the government of God which has occurred because of crime. Well, depends on what exactly you mean. God commands repentance, and restitution if applicable. Don't you agree that these are commands of God to undo damage done to justice? You have to agree that these are good works. And anyone doing them are attempting to enter heaven but not by good works alone, which some do in attempts to go around the need to obey the gospel. Christians are saved by good works like these, as well as baptism and living right after the new birth. Living right are good works Christians should do but don't do to earn salvation. When someone doesn't have the Word then they can't develope Word-faith for salvation. When God speaks to these without the Word, using the conscience that he had placed, the effect is essentially the same -- they respond to the methods God has placed. They then are essentially the same as someone who responds to the Word. They show obedience to what God has instituted and it is not attempts to do it on their own good works alone. Whether someone hears God from: 1) the conscience 2) reading the Bible 3) talking to a friend 4) hearing a preacher 5) reading a Christian testimony 6) hearing a testimony on the radio 7) etc -- it makes no difference how they hear when they obey what God intends. Don't deny that God can produce a change in the heart by the conscience and not think that person is righteous, fit for heaven. But don't apply that principle to those who have heard and reject the gospel. These choose hell.


Logic tells us that a thief and robber who then after his career of crime decides to start orphanages and feed the homeless is therefore not guilty of thieving and robbing. Logic also tells us that the above mentioned reformed thief does not thereby EARN a RIGHT to a pardon, even though reformation of life and character may be (and should be) CONDITIONS for receiving a pardon. TRUE, and people who have not the law follow the only God-given method available to them and should not be described as attempting to earn salvation by good works. They follow the limited means of God in those who have not the law. No one should misapply principles to any who follow the ways of God, ie follow the God-given conscience.You seem to allow that the conscience is used in one age but disallow that the conscience can be used a measure standard in another age.


Logic tells us that when the Bible declares NOBODY is justified by their DEEDS, but ONLY through faith in Christ, then it must be true, and the opposite must be false (that anyone can be justified or receive eternal life because of their right living or deeds apart from faith in Jesus Christ). Paul and the Bible would disagree with this, in those who live right not having heard the Word. A just God does not d.mn someone who wants to do right. A just God does not apply rules which someone has never heard, even though they are dead in sin.


Logic tells us you have not thought your doctrine through logically. Logic tells us that any reading the whole Word see that a just God would judge right in each circumstance in its facts. Good judges don't judge by the rigidity of the letter of the law but do what judges are supposed to do -- examine each case independently to determine a just sentence for the circumstance. A just God does not condemn to hell right-living people who have never heard the gospel. Any describing God so make God appear as unjust, unmerciful, ungracious. That does not describe Jesus. Stop describing God as unjust.

Most of your arguments rightly apply to someone who has heard the gospel but rejects it. Find a way to see that there are some who have never heard the Word and that God does not apply to them what he applies to those who have heard. Your arguments imply that you don't see this as a possibility.

Readers will see by the many times I've agreed with you, in this post and others, that I believe in salvation by grace through faith in what Jesus has done. I don't have as an agenda to tear down justification by faith in what God supplies through the Cross. Readers will see that what Paul speaks of in Ro2.12-16 addresses a situation where some never hear the Gospel. Some of these respond to the only God-given ways they know -- the conscience. In effect these exercise faith in God's ways. Paul shows these having a clear conscience, admitted to heaven. Any dening what Paul shows appear to deny that God can use the conscience to judge by, when most Christians believe that the conscience will be used at the final judgment. Any who deny the conscience, saying that God only uses the Gospel to judge, then also denies that God uses another method other than the gospel to judge babies, saying they will go to hell because they aren't born again.

We are all saved by good works. Faith in God is a good work. Repentance, restitution, baptism, living a godly life are all good works which are necessary for salvation. But these aren't done apart from faith in Jesus. Many attempt to live a good life apart from faith in what Jesus provides, thinking they can reject the gospel they have heard and gain righteousness for entrance to heaven by their efforts, which will fail. To characterize these Gentiles of Ro2 as attempting to gain entrance to heaven by good works alone omits that they respond to the only God-given method they know when they don't have the Word -- the conscience. Any who deny this deny the obvious because Paul says their clean conscience gains them admittance to heaven.

By your efforts to characterize these Gentiles as being portrayed by anyone as attempting to gain to heaven by good works alone results in ignoring the obvious: they respond to what God wants of them with a heart showing them as wanting to live right. Why are these obvious facts ignored in your characterization? Any who characterize me as believing in salvation by good works ignore my obvious contentions to the contrary, ignore my scripturally based explanations to the contrary, and have an agenda which forces them to ignore the obvious of both the Word and what I say of the Ro2.12-16. What necessitates the agenda?

What Paul shows in Ro2.12-16 is complementary to, not contradictory to what the Bible shows of salvation by faith.

[Amanah]

The point of the passage is that the conscience convicts them of guilt because all have sinned

Romans 2:12-16:

In this passage, Paul continues his argument from Romans 1, emphasizing that all humanity is accountable to God. He writes:

- Verses 12-13: Those who sin outside of the Law (Gentiles) will perish outside of the Law, while those who sin under the Law (Jews) will be judged by the Law.
- Verse 14-15: Gentiles, who do not have the Law, show that they know God's requirements by their conscience, which accuses or excuses them.
- Verse 16: God judges secrets through Christ Jesus.

In the context of Romans, this passage highlights:

- Universal guilt and accountability before God
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
- The insufficiency of the Law for salvation (Romans 3:20)
- The need for faith in Christ, who reveals God's righteousness (Romans 3:21-22)

Paul emphasizes that all humanity stands before God, either condemned by the Law or convicted by conscience. Only faith in Christ, who fulfills the Law and reveals God's righteousness, can bring salvation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

By your efforts to characterize these Gentiles as being portrayed by anyone as attempting to gain to heaven by good works alone results in ignoring the obvious: they respond to what God wants of them with a heart showing them as wanting to live right. Why are these obvious facts ignored in your characterization?

Is English your native language?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is English your native language?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The point of the passage is that the conscience convicts them of guilt because all have sinned Yes, for he continues in 2.1 that the pagan Gentile is without excuse. The pagan, by worshipping, admit to the existence of God, but substitute the lie instead of admitting to themselves the truth of the true God. Something testifies but they refuse it.

But Paul also says, just possessing the law does not do anyone any good. It must enter the heart and produce what God had intended -- right living. Any sinning Jew sneering at a Gentile who sins without law will be condemned because v11 For there is no partiality with God. This shows those who allow the Word to do its work in the heart who are justified, v13, not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified. But some Gentiles, who are also showing justification, are not those who've heard the law but those who've haven't.

To say the passage speaks of these Gentiles as having a conscience to show them guilty is only true until they respond to it with right living, ending up justified. But you choose not to mention this part of the passage, strangely, presumedly because it doesn't agree with your theology.

One purpose of reading the Word is to gain God's info to produce a scriptural framework to arrange our actions around. Ignoring portions of scripture produces an incorrect framework (theology). Plz allow what Paul speaks of here to help mold your theology, which is: Paul says these Gentiles show the work of God's law in their actions but while not having the law. How is this possible, that someone can have the effects of the law showing but not having heard the law? Its impossible, unless God provides another way. The speaking of their conscience has produced in them what the reading of the law does in others. They are as just as those who've responded to the law and are as fit for heaven as any who responds to the law because their actions are the same.

On judgment day v16, what do you think the conscience of these, who show the just works of the law in their heart, will speak of them? Guilt or righteousness? Do you agree that it will not be guilt? Even so in Gentiles who live in the church age but don't ever hear the gospel? Any reading Paul here in Ro2.12-16 should adjust their theology to include that God can produce righteousness by conscience and this righteousness doesn't come only by obedience to the Gospel. Any not doing so will have an incomplete theology, a distorted theology.

To see the conscience as producing this righteousness is complementary, not contradictory to the gospel. It is in agreement with what God shows of those in the age of conscience. Some there, Enoch being one, live righteous by the conscience alone (for Paul says they don't have the Word) and pleasing God by this righteousness to be taken to heaven. (There will be some here in this thread who will jump all over this statement. They will say that the Bible doesn't say that God took Enoch to heaven (though most would think that this is where). But that's what they do, these who jump all over insignificant details and magnify them only to discredit the character of the writer, because that is what they do. When they have nothing relevant to say they jump on details, even defending the practise of jumping on insignificant details, because that is what you do when you have an agenda instead of substance to contribute to a discussion. They waste everyone's time as I do by writing this. I'd rather not, but circumstances force it.) If God declares these are fit for heaven by the conscience alone, then any others (in the church age) who similarly are without the Word (the effect of listening to the conscience, in someone who doesn't know that the Word exists, is the same as those who have received the Word) will also be declared righteous or it shows God changing his mind. This would show God as making a mistake in one instance. But God can't make mistakes.

Nor can he show respect of person, which he would be doing if he declares one righteous by conscience and the other unrighteous, when they both live right. That God has introduced a covenant for any to enter into means nothing to those who never hear the covenant rules. Often you quote verses, Amanah, relating to those who have heard the covenant rules but they are irrelevant, inapplicable to someone who doesn't know they exist.

Paul says those who haven't heard the law (don't know it exists) do not have their sin imputed to them. Why? For some it is because there is no law, for some because they have never heard the existing law. The effect is the same - no imputation. When the Word isn't present to be used by God to judge he relies on the internally placed 'law' -- the conscience -- to judge by, because he will not be seen as an unjust judge. A just judge condemns the guilty and pardons those who want to live right -- even if it is only by the conscience.

The context of the NT writings is that the writers all grew up saturated with the Word (except Luke if people see him as a Gentile). The context of the NT, the background of its writings in the majority of the writers, then isn't a place where there are any who haven't heard. Perhaps this context should be taken into consideration when examining the theology they present, instead of seeing it as contradicting times such as which Paul presents here in Ro2.12-16. Their history and life experience has always been with the Word and the background they write from almost prevents any other context.

But Paul says stuff, funny stuff, which doesn't fit this context. He says those in the age of conscience have no law, yet calls them sinners (and sin is the transgression of the law which doesn't exist). These thoughts are contradictory and can't be true unless theologically reconciled somehow (which I've done by showing God placing a 'law' within Man's conscience when he made Man in the image of God).

Plz show Paul wrong when he says these he describes as: having sin, dead in sin, in Adam all die, (therefore sinners to the hilt) but don't have the Word. They are described as sinners in spite of it!!! His logic is not wrong but contradicting with the sin/law theology he shows elsewhere. Those before the law don't have sin imputed because that would be unjust. The principle therefore is: showing people without the law don't have the law used to judge them, which is the principle applied in Ro2.12-16. But you, Amanah, don't show efforts trying to show him wrong in your arguments even though it contradicts theology. Plz show Paul wrong here, when he describes people who don't have a law as breaking the law which doesn't exist, because it shows Paul as contradictory.

Yet you don't. And why then do you insist on showing him contradictory when his writings are interpretted as showing righteousness attained through 'obedience' to the conscience because, as you, not I say, it contradicts what the gospel shows? Why the discrimination of the contradictions you choose to oppose. Instead, agree with Paul on both. Agree that what he says of the conscience shows God as just. Agree with Paul that what he says about the salvation theology he has constructed/ the conscience is true, but that they don't contradict one another. His theology of sin is really non-contradictory. His theology of attaining righteousness by means of the conscience and also the gospel is not really contradictory. That they have the appearance of doing so, as all the so called Biblical contradictions do, has to do with Man's incomplete understanding. Man's understanding is always at fault, not God's revelation of his thoughts.





Romans 2:12-16:

In this passage, Paul continues his argument from Romans 1, emphasizing that all humanity is accountable to God. He writes:

- Verses 12-13: Those who sin outside of the Law (Gentiles) will perish outside of the Law, while those who sin under the Law (Jews) will be judged by the Law. How about the opposite? Those who live right outside the law will be seen as righteous? You omit this, focussing on the negative.

- Verse 14-15: Gentiles, who do not have the Law, show that they know God's requirements by their conscience, which accuses or excuses them.
- Verse 16: God judges secrets through Christ Jesus.

In the context of Romans, this passage highlights:

- Universal guilt and accountability before God AMEN
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
- The insufficiency of the Law for salvation (Romans 3:20) AMEN
- The need for faith in Christ, who reveals God's righteousness (Romans 3:21-22) AMEN, but what of those who've never heard? Have you commented on those who have never heard but live right? All I hear you say that all are d.mned, but what say you about people who live right but haven't heard. Do you see a time when people listen to their conscience and live right and go heaven?


Paul emphasizes that all humanity stands before God, either condemned by the Law or convicted by conscience. Only faith in Christ, who fulfills the Law and reveals God's righteousness, can bring salvation.

Keep defending the faith because correct NT salvation theology is important to the world. But also add to it what Paul/the Word says about the conscience. I agree with you on salvation by faith through grace by obedience to the gospel. Although the word obedience implies good works, NT salvation is not based on Man's efforts alone. Man must cooperate with God's gracious provision by executing commanded good works, or God's efforts would fail. God's grace is not irresistible nor forced on the unwilling.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is English your native language?

You make a good point. Any other comments on this post would also be welcomed.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hey, E. B. I always wondered what Evang is a contraction of. Care to say?