John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

First, let it be said that I believe in Jn 3.5 and Ac2.38 as necessary for those wanting 100%. Is there a place in God's world where he can accept those who give 95%? Or said another way, is it 100% with God or you go to hell?

Reminds me of a song:

[votivesoul]

I think some of the confusion about Paul's context and intent can be cleared up with some investigation into the Greek terms he employed in his rhetoric, in Romans (and elsewhere, too).

Romans 2:9 (ESV),

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek...

What does Paul mean by "Jew", by "Greek"?

Paul uses Ἰουδαίου - Ioudaiou, from Ἰουδαῖος - Ioudaios commonly translated as "Jew" across the entire New Covenant Scriptures, not just in Paul.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/2-9.htm

Does Paul here mean every biological descendant of Jacob/Israel?

Ἰουδαῖος - Ioudaios is a transliteration of the Hebrew term יְהוּדָ֔ה yə·hū·ḏāh, as seen, for example, in Judges 15:10. In 2 Kings 16:6, the plural form, הַיְהוּדִ֖ים yehudi is used.

This Hebrew term refers quite specifically in the Holy Scriptures to either of the following:

1.) Judah, 4th son of Jacob through Leah
2.) The individual and collective people descended from Judah, i.e. the Tribe of Judah, i.e. Judahites.
3.) The form of the Hebrew language spoken by the Judahites (See 2 Chronicles 32:18).

After the separation of the 10 Tribes of Israel during the reign of Rehoboam, who continued to be called Israel, in the south, Judah, along with Benjamin, which was the northern neighbor to the Judah's territory, along with many of the Levites became known as the Kingdom of Judah until the Babylonian Captivity and Deportation. Once in exile, the various peoples taken by Nebuchadnezzar became somewhat blended, up to the point that during the Return, some of them couldn't prove their lineage as described in the Books of Nehemiah (7:61) and Ezra (2:59). In this way, it became, at least in one instance, common for a Benjaminite to be called a "Jew" (See, e.g. Esther 2:5).

Later in Esther, it is said that many Persians converted to become Judahites, that is, they became proselytes to their religion (See Esther 8:17).

In this way, the term Jew while becoming somewhat a catch all for any of the Diasporan Exiles and Returnees, really mostly meant those descended from the Fourth Son of Jacob.

After the conquest of the Levant by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C., Greek, that is to say, Hellenist culture, language, and religion poured into the region.

In the decades and centuries that followed, sometimes because of the duress of persecution (especially under the reign of Antiochus IV), many descendants from Judah converted to the Greek way of life. These became known as Hellenists.

This word or term is the very one used by Paul in Romans 2:9, which in English is translated as "Greeks". But what does Paul mean by this?

Does Paul mean all non-Judahites everywhere throughout the Roman Empire?

No, I do not think so, for the following reason:

Romans 2:9-10 (ESV),

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the [Ἕλληνος - Hellēnos], 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the [Ἕλληνι - Hellēni]...

See:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/2-9.htm
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/2-10.htm

Romans 2:14 (ESV),

14 For when Gentiles [ἔθνη - ethnē], who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Note that just a few verses late, Paul uses any entirely different term for "Gentiles" than he does for "Greeks". In Romans 2:14, the term means "a race of people", i.e. "nations", or "ethnic group", that is, people who have a shared culture.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm

Therefore, when Paul writes of the Greeks, he is referring to the Judahites who left their ancestral tribal heritage and apostatized from their ancestral religion, adopting new customs from a foreign culture.

But when referring to the rest of the various different people groups throughout the Roman Empire, and by extension, the known world, Paul doesn't describe them as Greeks, but rather as Nations.

So, Paul's discourse about the law in Romans 2 first is a matter limited to loyalist descendants of Judah, i.e. "Jews", and those who returned from the Exile with them (i.e. Benjaminites, like Paul himself [See Romans 11:1 and Philippians 3:5]), and the apostate Judahites who fell away into Greek culture, language, and religion even to the point of practicing epispasm, that is, a type of circumcision reversal.

It is only after these two groups are addressed that Paul begins to mention the "Gentiles" and their relation to "the Law".

[donfriesen1]

Jesus gave to Peter the keys to the Kingdom. Keys both lock and unlock. Was Peter to lock or unlock the Kingdom? Both Jesus and John B said the Kingdom of God was at hand, coming in the future. This tell us the Keys were given to unlock the Kingdom so all who desired could enter the new Kingdom. Jesus also said the Kingdom was within you. We enter the Kingdom and the Kingdom enters us. This entering into us tells us the keys are concepts. When did Peter use the keys? Logic tells us that the day the Kingdom started would be a good day to first use the keys, for the King desires subjects for his new Kingdom. Because the Church is the Kingdom, the first day of the existence of the Church would be the right day to use the keys. That day was the day of Pentecost, Ac2. What Peter preached there revealed the concept which unlocked the Kingdom for all to enter. Starting at v36 he reveals the elements of the concept. God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The concepts are faith in God. Faith in the Crucifixion. Faith in the revelation of himself in the God/man. He continues in v38 where he answered the question raised in v37 what shall we do? Repent, be baptized, receive God's Spirit. v41 says 3000 were added to them, entering the kingdom. What worked as a key to enter the Kingdom on the Church's first day should also work on any day following. Paul says in Ga1.8,9 that a curse should be upon anyone who preaches any other Gospel than what he preached. This is the Gospel I, donfriesen1, would preach should anyone want to enter the Kingdom Of God today.

But they would jump all over me for these words because that is what they do. They jump on details and ignore the arguments made in the general statements. When they don't have any arguments against any good arguments I make they would jump on the details to cast dispersions to discredit what I say, attempting to character assassinate instead of offering counter arguments. For example, they would jump all over the fact that when I didn't say 'Jesus name' when I referred to baptism and they would say that this shows that I don't really believe in Jesus name baptism. They might say that Ac2 doesn't say the 3000 were added to the kingdom but were added to them, not added to the kingdom. They nit-pick over details. That is what they do to discredit - they nit-pick at details ignoring what is presented in the general. They also would jump all over the fact that I didn't make a direct conection between what Peter said as a Gospel and that which Paul said was the Gospel. They also should jump on the fact that the keys of the Gospel lock some out and unlock some to enter. Because, 'that's what they do' when they can't provide proofs contrary to proofs I've presented they will highlight the fact that I've not made that connection and say therefore that I don't really believe the Gospel. That's what they do - they exaggerate the discrepancies and distort the obviously stated in generalities as representing something other than what what was clearly intended, because there is a hidden agenda which motivates them to do so, when I clearly refer to the same Gospel which was provided for all for NT salvation. But that's what they do. When I answer in post 25 a simple question that Amanah asks, saying 'Yes with explanation' then they jump all over it to distort it by saying I only said Yes, leaving out that I said 'Yes with explanation', when asked if I believe in salvation by good works. That's what they do, to distort what someone says when they can't provide logical arguments to counter given arguments. Its clear that I said "Yes with explanation". But when you have an agenda you grasp at straws and magnify the discrepancies of details instead of doing what most people do - take at face value the general statements.

Paul says in Ro 2 that these Gentiles have no law. Any persons preaching the Gospel also have the law along with the Gospel. Therefore, when Paul says they have no law he must mean that they also have no Gospel. If you don't have the Gospel then you can't have faith for obedience to be born again. Unless you have an agenda motivating otherwise you accept what Paul plainly says and agree with him on this point. When you agree with him here you also agree with him when he says that nature is that which has produced the work of the law written in their hearts, as coming from nature and not from the law or the Gospel they don't have. But when you have an agenda this prevents you from agreeing with Paul on both these points and also causes some to distort in their favour the arguments made contrary to yours. Truth seekers focus on truths presented in generalities and not on an ambiguity of details. True truth seekers fight fair or don't fight.

[donfriesen1]

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law. Some call this time the Age of Conscience because of there being no law. Does the Bible call it an Age of Conscience? No. People do. A man who started 2 Bible schools and Pastored in both foreign and domestic churches, starting multiple churches during his ministry may be qualified enough to use this term. It may not be good enough for any other to use, but I'll accept his estimation, along with others, on whether it is appropriate or not.

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time? This is an important question because it is in the Age of Conscience that God judges the world for sin, by the Flood. Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world. Sin is usually defined as breaking the law. How can Paul say that there was no law but in the same breath say that they are breaking the law. There must have been another standard for determining sin, of determining right and wrong. Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie. This feeling, in those who don't read the Bible, comes from the conscience God placed in Man, and also from our intellect. (Nit-pickers will say we shouldn't live by our feelings. And nit-pickers will also say we should use our feelings because that is how we descern what is going on in the world around us.) When someone lies to us we are bothered by it. We feel wronged when lied to and our intellect/reasoning tells us if we feel wronged when lied to, then it is wrong to lie to anyone else because they may feel wronged. Conscience is the standard-maker-for-sin in the time when Paul says there was no law. If not this then what?

Also, we are made in the image of God. God has a built-in standard of right and wrong that is within him. (The nit-picker will say that God has no 'internal'.) In eternity he has no Book like the Bible for standards of right and wrong. He is the standard. If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong? Logic and faith in what God's Word tells us about the image of God would make this true. When God created Adam and Eve they were given perhaps one law, don't eat that fruit, and the means for the determining of right and wrong was from within them, their conscience and intellect. It was the sin-determiner till the giving of the Law at Sinai. Enoch lived by his conscience and intellect. While not specifically mentioned in an earlier post (because his fame is so great it needed no mention), it is well-known by me and most of the Christian world, without mention, that he pleased God, that God took him. Christians believe he went to heaven without seeing death. If Enoch doesn't have the Word of God to give him faith to live right because law didn't exist, then what is the source of his faith? It has got to come from somewhere, but it doesn't come from a non-extant Word or Law. (The nit-picker will say that the Word of God is forever settled in Heaven, therefore exists eternally.) Where does your reasoning ability say Enoch's faith comes from? Mine tells me that it comes from his conscience and intellect because, apart from divine revelation, what other source could it be? There is no law. Enoch certainly had faith but didn't have faith in the Word of God because it was not yet given. Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law.

Genesis 26:5 KJV
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Abraham knew and kept the commandments, statutes, and laws of God, long before Mt Sinai. I wonder where he got any of that information?

Some call this time the Age of Conscience because of there being no law. Does the Bible call it an Age of Conscience? No. People do. A man who started 2 Bible schools and Pastored in both foreign and domestic churches, starting multiple churches during his ministry may be qualified enough to use this term. It may not be good enough for any other to use, but I'll accept his estimation, along with others, on whether it is appropriate or not.

A fallacious appeal to authority (man-made at that).

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time?

Genesis 5:22 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

What does it mean to "walk with God"?

Genesis 6:9 KJV
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 17:1 KJV
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 KJV
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, [13] To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

So Enoch knew God and was obedient and faithful to Him. Notice this too:

Hebrews 11:5 KJV
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

From the very next verse:

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
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.

Enoch, and everybody else mentioned in the 11th chapter of Hebrews, had faith in the true God, walked in faith with God, and were obedient to His Revelation to them. They weren't just "following the dictates of their conscience", they were prophets, the people of God, who had direct contact with God via Divine Revelation, and were faithful to Him.

Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world.

Actually, Paul did NOT say "there is no law". He said sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Then he goes on about how everybody in that era sinned. The conclusion is that there was indeed law in that era, because otherwise nobody would have been guilty of sin!

Romans 5:12 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death passed upon all men because all have sinned. But if sin was not being imputed to them, then they would not have been under sentence of death. Thus proving there was, in fact, law. Was it the Sinaitic Covenant? No, of course not. But God's moral law (which was later codified in the Sinaitic Covenant) was clearly in operation. Otherwise there would have been no righteous basis for God punishing anybody at anytime prior to Sinai.

If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong?

There is in men something called the conscience, which is the faculty or ability of recognising right from wrong. It is not the "standard" (that doesn't even make any rational sense). It is the ability to RECOGNISE the standard, which is God's eternal moral law.

Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

Paul says they have not the law, whereas the Jew does. He further explains what he means by having the law, it means being a member of the Sinaitic Covenant, and having the codified law instituted as a social contract ("law of the land"). The Gentiles he speaks of however, do in fact the things contained in the law, they actually perform the things commanded by the law, unlike the Jew who although having the law nevertheless does not actually perform it. So, he says, these Gentiles show the WORK of the law written in the heart. The law of God has been codified in their heart, whereas the Jew has not the law of God codified or written in the heart. Therefore the Gentile has the righteousness of the law fulfilled in him, whereas the Jew does not.

Since there has been a WORK of the law written in the heart, it follows that something happened to cause God's law to be written in their heart. What is that? According to Paul, and according to Jeremiah, it is the effect of the NEW COVENANT.

More importantly, Paul identifies these Gentiles as having an inward spiritual heart circumcision:

Romans 2:25-29 KJV
For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [26] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

These Gentiles he speaks of are Jews "inwardly", who although uncircumcised in flesh are counted as being circumcised (in Covenant with God) because they are circumcised in heart and spirit.

Who is "circumcised in heart"? Heathens who have a vague sense of right and wrong? No. CHRISTIANS:

Colossians 2:8-13 KJV
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: [12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. [13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Philippians 3:3 KJV
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Therefore, the gentiles mentioned in Romans 2 who demonstrate the work of the law written in their heart, who are inwardly "Jews", who are inwardly circumcised, who are circumcised in the heart, spiritually, must of necessity be Christians.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But they would jump all over me for these words because that is what they do. They jump on details and ignore the arguments made in the general statements. When they don't have any arguments against any good arguments I make they would jump on the details to cast dispersions to discredit what I say, attempting to character assassinate instead of offering counter arguments. For example, they would jump all over the fact that when I didn't say 'Jesus name' when I referred to baptism and they would say that this shows that I don't really believe in Jesus name baptism. They might say that Ac2 doesn't say the 3000 were added to the kingdom but were added to them, not added to the kingdom. They nit-pick over details. That is what they do to discredit - they nit-pick at details ignoring what is presented in the general. They also would jump all over the fact that I didn't make a direct conection between what Peter said as a Gospel and that which Paul said was the Gospel. They also should jump on the fact that the keys of the Gospel lock some out and unlock some to enter. Because, 'that's what they do' when they can't provide proofs contrary to proofs I've presented they will highlight the fact that I've not made that connection and say therefore that I don't really believe the Gospel. That's what they do - they exaggerate the discrepancies and distort the obviously stated in generalities as representing something other than what what was clearly intended, because there is a hidden agenda which motivates them to do so, when I clearly refer to the same Gospel which was provided for all for NT salvation. But that's what they do.

Your arguments have been addressed, repeatedly. It was also pointed out that what you are espousing is a salvation-by-works doctrine for people "who haven't heard the Gospel". There is no disputing this. You can try to redirect all you want, nobody is using fallacies against you or "nitpicking". Legalism is not about "nitpicking", it concerns the very core of the Gospel.

When I answer in post 25 a simple question that Amanah asks, saying 'Yes with explanation' then they jump all over it to distort it by saying I only said Yes, leaving out that I said 'Yes with explanation', when asked if I believe in salvation by good works. That's what they do, to distort what someone says when they can't provide logical arguments to counter given arguments. Its clear that I said "Yes with explanation". But when you have an agenda you grasp at straws and magnify the discrepancies of details instead of doing what most people do - take at face value the general statements.

Do you not understand that "yes with explanation" means YES? You did not say "no, but let me add some details or nuances", or anything like that. You said YES and then wanted to "explain" how people can be SAVED BY WORKS. There is no "explanation" needed, you say some folks can be saved by works, how do you expect to explain this as saying "yes, some can be saved by works, but let me explain how this isn't legalism"? Come on, man. You are literally telling us "Guys, don't believe your lying eyes, when I say some can be saved by good works it isn't legalism or salvation by works"????

Paul says in Ro 2 that these Gentiles have no law. Any persons preaching the Gospel also have the law along with the Gospel. Therefore, when Paul says they have no law he must mean that they also have no Gospel.

You are simply repeating yourself at this point. I have already showed what Paul is talking about, that "having the law" does NOT mean "they heard some preaching", that the contrast is between JEWS AND GENTILES not between "those who hear Christian preaching and those who have never heard it".

you also agree with him when he says that nature is that which has produced the work of the law written in their hearts, as coming from nature and not from the law or the Gospel they don't have.

First of all, agreeing with Paul does not mean agreeing with YOU. In fact, I would suggest that if a person agrees with Paul they will most definitely DISAGREE with YOU, because you have twisted Paul's words and are promoting (as repeatedly shown here) the very doctrine Paul refuted over and over again throughout his letters, the idea that anybody can have "good works enough" to "get to heaven".

Second, you are misusing the term "nature" here. I suspect you do not understand how it is used in the Bible. Here is a key example of "nature":

Galatians 2:15-16 KJV
We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, [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.

There are "Jews BY NATURE", as contrasted with "sinners of the Gentiles". What does that mean? The key difference between a Jew and a Gentile is circumcision, which is decidedly NOT natural, but artificial, it is an act of man performed (usually on the 8th day of Jewish man's life). Here, a RELIGIOUS difference is called "nature".

I really don't think you understand the terms you are using. You are not allowing the Bible to interpret itself. Nobody, whether Jew or Gentile, is "faithful and obedient to God "BY NATURE" (in the sense you seem to be using the term) unless they have a NEW NATURE. which means they have to be REGENERATED, or BORN AGAIN.

Here is the "natural" condition of a man:

1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Jesus gave to Peter the keys to the Kingdom. Keys both lock and unlock. Was Peter to lock or unlock the Kingdom? Both Jesus and John B said the Kingdom of God was at hand, coming in the future. This tell us the Keys were given to unlock the Kingdom so all who desired could enter the new Kingdom. Jesus also said the Kingdom was within you. We enter the Kingdom and the Kingdom enters us. This entering into us tells us the keys are concepts. When did Peter use the keys? Logic tells us that the day the Kingdom started would be a good day to first use the keys, for the King desires subjects for his new Kingdom. Because the Church is the Kingdom, the first day of the existence of the Church would be the right day to use the keys. That day was the day of Pentecost, Ac2. What Peter preached there revealed the concept which unlocked the Kingdom for all to enter. Starting at v36 he reveals the elements of the concept. God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” The concepts are faith in God. Faith in the Crucifixion. Faith in the revelation of himself in the God/man. He continues in v38 where he answered the question raised in v37 what shall we do? Repent, be baptized, receive God's Spirit. v41 says 3000 were added to them, entering the kingdom. What worked as a key to enter the Kingdom on the Church's first day should also work on any day following. Paul says in Ga1.8,9 that a curse should be upon anyone who preaches any other Gospel than what he preached. This is the Gospel I, donfriesen1, would preach should anyone want to enter the Kingdom Of God today.

...

Paul says in Ro 2 that these Gentiles have no law. Any persons preaching the Gospel also have the law along with the Gospel. Therefore, when Paul says they have no law he must mean that they also have no Gospel. If you don't have the Gospel then you can't have faith for obedience to be born again. Unless you have an agenda motivating otherwise you accept what Paul plainly says and agree with him on this point. When you agree with him here you also agree with him when he says that nature is that which has produced the work of the law written in their hearts, as coming from nature and not from the law or the Gospel they don't have. But when you have an agenda this prevents you from agreeing with Paul on both these points and also causes some to distort in their favour the arguments made contrary to yours. Truth seekers focus on truths presented in generalities and not on an ambiguity of details. True truth seekers fight fair or don't fight.

Here you seem to be distinguishing people entering the Kingdom (joining the church?) vs going to heaven. You previously stated several times that these Romans 2 gentiles never heard the Gospel, don't know Jesus is, are not born again, yet they will "go to heaven".

Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't "nitpicking" over semantics, words mean things, and changing the meaning of words, and using Bible terms in decidedly unbiblical ways to promote unbiblical doctrine is not mere semantics. And pointing out these errors is not "nitpicking".

You agree that in order to enter the kingdom one MUST be born again. No amount of "natural conscience" will enable a person to enter the kingdom of God, right? Then explain this:

1 Corinthians 15:50-54 KJV
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [51] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. [53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. [54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Here, entering into immortality is called "inheriting the kingdom of God". What you call "going to heaven" (eternal life) is called by the apostle "inheriting the kingdom of God". This is important. It proves that there are not two classes of people - the church or those who inherit the kingdom, and another group the "right-living gentiles who never heard the Gospel" who "go to heaven". One does not "go to heaven" while not being part of the kingdom of God.

Revelation 20:15 KJV
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Who is written in the Book of Life?

Revelation 3:5 KJV
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Those who are in the Book of Life are those whom Christ shall confess as His, like here:

Matthew 10:32 KJV
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Those whom Christ confesses are those who confess Christ.

Nobody except the faithful believers are going to inherit the kingdom of God, receive eternal life, or (as you put it) "go to heaven".

[Esaias]

Which one of these is the correct, Bible Truth?

Mark 16:16 KJV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 DFV
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned, except for those who follow their conscience and live right, they don't HAVE to believe and be baptized.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie.

Says who?

I've met plenty of people who didn't feel at all "bad" about lying. Plenty of people who think lying is perfectly okay to get what they want.

Where is this idea coming from that "EVERYBODY feels it is wrong to lie"?

And even if they did, what of the other commandments? Like "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy"? Or "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them"? Does everybody "feel" such things are wrong? Seriously?

A lot of people have a normalcy bias where they think everyone around them is basically like they are. This is how people get mugged or taken advantage of, ripped off, and even killed, because they think some other person is basically "just like them". Not realising that it is unwise to measure people by other people (including yourself):

2 Corinthians 10:12 KJV
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[Esaias]

And with that, I think I have sufficiently shown that the doctrine that "there were and maybe are people who never heard the Gospel and who were never in covenant with God will nevertheless go to heaven because they have a conscience that tells them right from wrong and they live right enough" is a false doctrine.

And so, I bid the thread adieu.