John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Esaias answer,post 71, was so skimpy that it didn't rate as an answer.

See, Don? This is why I've decided to just view the thread, rather than go back and forth with you. Just posting this for whoever.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

See, Don? This is why I've decided to just view the thread, rather than go back and forth with you. Just posting this for whoever.

Esaias, I'm enjoying what you are posting. Don, doesn't care. I care, I appreciate you putting in the effort, for us. Don, is like so many others we have held discussions with. Don loves to read his own posts and will never ever change his beliefs. If Jesus preached and David played his harp, Don would still want to believe that people will go to heaven because they're nice, outside of knowing Jesus Christ. So, again, I for one appreciate your posting.

[Amanah]

Elder Esaias. I need you to fact check my research please

People on earth from creation to Noah knew who God was from Adam and Eve. So really no need to wonder if people walked by faith in God and the promised Messiah.

According to the biblical account, Adam lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5). Enoch was born when Adam was 687 years old (Genesis 5:6-21), and Noah was born when Enoch was 65 years old (Genesis 5:32).

we can calculate:

- Adam lived for 243 years after Enoch's birth (930 - 687 = 243)
- Enoch lived for 365 years after Noah's birth (365 - 65 = 300)

This means:

- Enoch and Adam overlapped in life for 243 years
- Noah and Enoch overlapped in life for 300 years
- Noah and Adam overlapped in life for 243 + 300 = 543 years (since Enoch outlived Adam)

Given these overlaps, it is highly likely that:

- Enoch knew Adam
- Noah knew both Enoch and Adam

*************
Here are the covenants mentioned in the Bible, in chronological order:

1. Adamic Covenant (Genesis 1-2): God's covenant with Adam, establishing the relationship between God and humanity.
2. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 6-9): God's covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood.
3. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-21, 17:1-27): God's covenant with Abraham, promising land, descendants, and blessings.
4. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24, Deuteronomy 4-30): God's covenant with Israel, establishing the Law and the nation's relationship with God.
5. Levitic Covenant (Numbers 3:11-13, 8:1-26, 18:1-32): God's covenant with the Levites, designating them as priests and servants of the Lord.
6. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-29, 1 Chronicles 17:1-27): God's covenant with David, promising a perpetual kingdom and throne.
7. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-40, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:1-13):
With the house of Judah and Israel, gentiles grafted in

In each generation God has related to mankind through covenants.


So I guess the question is, what time frame would the scenario described in Romans 1 have been likely? or possible?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What was the Lord's motivation behind his words 'strait is the gate, narrow is the way'? It presupposes many things. Among them: 1. someone has built a community. 2. there are roads to travel. Thus the Lord indicates people travelling between destinations. He indicates that in peoples choices of roads that there are many but the best way for anyone travelling to the right destination is a narrow way, only one way, which is God's way. For those to travel to God's place is to find God's narrow way. But because I'm somewhat impish, and not always completely serious, I'll say that the broadway to destruction is to follow the broadway of the many who post on this thread. And the narrow way is to follow the way that Paul points to in Ro2.12-16 or perhaps Don's narrow way. But I jest.

Jesting aside, the broadway is based on man's opinion of a way which is outside of the way that God reveals. Man must control their intellectual abilities and reasoning to choose the way the highest intellect has provided. That way is the Gospel. But I'll repeat what I've continued to say on this thread. Paul speaks of in Ro2.12-16, about those who have never heard the Gospel, who follow the God-given conscience. Plz allow the God-given conscience to do the work God intended for these who have never heard. The conscience is a God-given pathway which leads to... where would someone who listens to their God-given conscience end up? Hell? God's perfect will is that all should hear the Gospel but not all will hear, and not all will find the narrow way he has provided because some fall through the cracks.

Its comforting to think that, hypothetically, that God will find a way to reach every last person with the full Gospel, like he did with Cornelius. But the real world we live in may not line up with the hypothetical and there will be some who fall through the cracks which God will not want to send to hell, bringing them into heaven by the merits of their conscience. If you want to call this salvation by good works that is your privilege, but not my definition to use. They operate the God-given faculties given them in the limited ways outside of covenantal means. Does God want every last soul to be saved and born agin. Yes but his perfect will not be achieved. Does God want everyone in heaven to be born again? Yes but the human element may frustrate God's perfect desires, compelling him to provide ways which are within the guides of his justice and holiness but not within the covenantal desires he wishes all would have.

I've answered your question, perhaps it was a direct answer, but please answer for me the question I don't get much response from anyone. Re: Acts 10.2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. Would Cornelius have been considered righteous enough to enter heaven had he died before he met Peter and before being born again? Or would he have gone to hell? Esaias answer,post 71, was so skimpy that it didn't rate as an answer.

Would a just God have sent this righteous man to hell? Plz, a direct answer. Not many dare to give a direct answer. Will you? We'll wait to see whether this conflicts with your theology or not.

Sure you want to use Cornelius as your defense? Cornelius was given a vision due solely on his devotion to God. Therefore your ideology of "right living" men going to heaven and skipping the blood of Christ is proven to be false. When compared with the book of Acts. Seek, and you will find, knock, and the door will be opened. Pretty simple, it isn't rocket science. So, let's deal with your hypothetical, since you whole belief system is hypothetical.

You asked "Would Cornelius have been considered righteous enough to enter heaven had he died before he met Peter and before being born again?"

My answer,

No!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, what you are proposing is that all of Israel and the Judean Diaspora didn't need the book of Acts 2. Paul didn't need to go and bother the Greeks in Acts 17:16–34.

In Acts 2:5 they were devout Judeans, and Diaspora Judeans.

For you they didn't need to hear Galileans speaking in the languages and dialects of their birth languages. They were already "right living" Jewish people.

Right Don?

So, good "right living" Hindus, Buddhists, Israelis, Muslims, NOI, Wiccans, or just good old atheists. All they really have to do is be good, but good compared to what? Who actually is the judge of this good, or as you put it, "right living?" Don, you sound like a Rabbi, who believes all a Gentile needs to do is keep the Noahide laws, and be a good gentile.

[Evang.Benincasa]

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

Matthew 17:13-14 is crystal clear, there is a broad way and a wide gate which leads to destruction. Only the narrow gate has the difficult road which leads to eternal life. In the parable of the sower the word of God is planted, and there are different kinds of soil which is the heart of man. If the seed doesn't take root, then you are not His. What you want others to believe is the problem false religions dealt with and came up with doctrines to remedy their dilemma. But, the New Testament is plain and we can't accept your salvation through works without the covenant of Christ's blood. Don, few find the narrow gate, and I hope for your sake you find it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part 2 -



You presume an awful lot about Enoch.

Genesis 5:22-24 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: [23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: [24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Enoch walked with God, yet you seem to think he had no clue who God was, he was just some heathen who happened to "do right by his conscience"? Please, stop.



See? You are a legalist, who thinks justification is by works instead of faith. Please listen to the Bible:

Romans 4:1-5 KJV
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [3] For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [4] Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

See? To the legalist, the one who attempts to be justified by works apart from faith, the reward is reckoned as a matter of debt, not grace. So too YOU (being a legalist) think "going to heaven" (what you imagine is the reward) is a matter of DEBT, that God OWES it to somebody. "Get it right enough to go to heaven"? Earn enough money for the taxi fare? Do enough good works to pay the ferryman to get into heaven? Legalism, justification by works, you reckon the reward as a matter of DEBT and not GRACE. Your belief is the very thing Paul was refuting.



You uttered this:



I didn't put any words in your mouth. I didn't even "read between the lines" like you say you are doing with Paul. I just took you for your word, that yes, you are saying some folks can be saved by works without faith.



Please, the ad hominems are unnecessary. YOU SAID YES when you were asked if some people can be saved by works without faith. Now, as to Romans 2 and the Gentiles Paul is talking about, yes they have faith, they are in the new covenant as I already proved over and over again, allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter.



I noticed you haven't answered several of my questions, like "Are you a Calvinist?" which was prompted by your statements about predestination and so forth. Anyway, about Cornelius:

Acts 11:13-14 KJV
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; [14] Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Clearly, Cornelius was NOT SAVED until after he heard Peter's preaching. He was going to hear words "whereby" he and his household would be "saved". Therefore, he was not "saved" until after he heard those words. Next?




What is the New Covenant that Christ came to establish? What was His mission?

Luke 1:68-75 KJV
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, [69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; [70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: [71] That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; [72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; [73] The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, [74] That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, [75] In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Abraham was before the Sinaitic covenant. Christ came to fulfill the covenant with Abraham. Here it is again:

Galatians 3:6-12 KJV
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. [7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. [9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. [10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. [11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. [12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

The Bible does not speak of any "Age of Conscience". That is an invention you have imported into the discussion. You know what else the Bible DOES say, though?

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

Don?

You didn’t read this post.

Esaias clearly answered all your questions.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Elder Esaias. I need you to fact check my research please

People on earth from creation to Noah knew who God was from Adam and Eve. So really no need to wonder if people walked by faith in God and the promised Messiah.

According to the biblical account, Adam lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5). Enoch was born when Adam was 687 years old (Genesis 5:6-21), and Noah was born when Enoch was 65 years old (Genesis 5:32).

we can calculate:

- Adam lived for 243 years after Enoch's birth (930 - 687 = 243)
- Enoch lived for 365 years after Noah's birth (365 - 65 = 300)

This means:

- Enoch and Adam overlapped in life for 243 years
- Noah and Enoch overlapped in life for 300 years
- Noah and Adam overlapped in life for 243 + 300 = 543 years (since Enoch outlived Adam)

Given these overlaps, it is highly likely that:

- Enoch knew Adam
- Noah knew both Enoch and Adam

*************
Here are the covenants mentioned in the Bible, in chronological order:

1. Adamic Covenant (Genesis 1-2): God's covenant with Adam, establishing the relationship between God and humanity.
2. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 6-9): God's covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood.
3. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-21, 17:1-27): God's covenant with Abraham, promising land, descendants, and blessings.
4. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24, Deuteronomy 4-30): God's covenant with Israel, establishing the Law and the nation's relationship with God.
5. Levitic Covenant (Numbers 3:11-13, 8:1-26, 18:1-32): God's covenant with the Levites, designating them as priests and servants of the Lord.
6. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-29, 1 Chronicles 17:1-27): God's covenant with David, promising a perpetual kingdom and throne.
7. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-40, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:1-13):
With the house of Judah and Israel, gentiles grafted in

In each generation God has related to mankind through covenants.


So I guess the question is, what time frame would the scenario described in Romans 1 have been likely? or possible?

Oh wow, Bible Chronology, a fascinating but difficult subject! I once did a chronology study and concluded that Abraham may have known Shem personally, or at least possibly could have!

God has definitely related to mankind through covenants. What is interesting is these covenants are all made with a particular group of people, a distinct family line from Adam to Jacob and his offspring. They are all related, it's a family thing.

Now, for Romans 1, I used to think Paul was speaking about mankind in general knowing God and then apostasizing. But somebody pointed something out:

Romans 1:18 KJV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Does the pagan heathen "hold the truth in unrighteousness"? I would say no, they don't hold the truth at all. God's truth was revealed to His people. So these people in Romans 1 are people who have the truth, but they are nevertheless unrighteous and disobedient to the truth.

Romans 1:21 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Again, these are people who "knew God". The people under discussion are those who knew God, they "held the truth". But even though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful, but they went stupid. So these are not people who "did not know God", or "did not know about God". This must then be the covenanted people, not heathen pagans or what have you.

They wind up in a reprobate state of mind, with this as the result:

Romans 1:32 KJV
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Again, they KNOW THE JUDGMENT OF GOD. Specifically, that those who commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH. This is not pagan heathen knowledge, this is Divine Revelation via the Word of God (whether written or prophetic). So romans 1 is not describing the general state or condition of all mankind, but is describing the apostate condition of the backslidden covenant people.

Now, the discussion continues into chapter 2, and begins to be broken down into the status and condition of Jew and Greek (and Jew and Gentile). But BOTH these groups are the ones mentioned in Romans 1, for the people of Israel were to become a multitude of nations (literally, "gentiles"), and the northern House of Israel was divorced by God and declared to be "Not My People" (ie "gentiles"). Both he Jew and the Greek once had the truth, and knew God, but got caught up in idolatry and every other sin. These "Greeks" and "Gentiles" (nations) are thus proven to be Israelites of the rejected and divorced House of Israel. The "Jew" (Judean) is what was left of the house of Judah who were at the time making other errors, as Paul explains in chapter 2 (they are breaking the law and thus dishonouring God even though they rest in their possession of the law, that is to say, the Covenant with God).

So it seems to Romans 1 primarily has to do with Israelites who had the truth but apostasized. The general principle can of course be applied to the pre-Flood descendants of Adam (especially those of his son Cain), and even the post-Flood descendants of Noah, because all these people at one time did in fact know God but most of them corrupted themselves and apostasized from God. But i think the more specific application has to do with the Judean and the Greek/Gentile who at one time did know God (because they were in a covenant with God at Sinai) but who have apostasized or backslidden or been disobedient to various degrees. And thus, both Jew and Greek are under sentence of death and need Christ to atone for their sins.

Not sure if that helps any? lol

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Romans 1:21 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Again, these are people who "knew God". The people under discussion are those who knew God, they "held the truth". But even though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful, but they went stupid. So these are not people who "did not know God", or "did not know about God". This must then be the covenanted people, not heathen pagans or what have you.

Most commentators say this is speaking of the heathen philosophers who knew about God. For example:

Barnes: "When they knew God - Greek, "knowing God." That is, they had an acquaintance with the existence and many of the perfections of one God. That many of the philosophers of Greece and Rome had a knowledge of one God, there can be no doubt. This was undoubtedly the case with Pythagoras, who had traveled extensively in Egypt, and even in Palestine; and also with Plato and his disciples. ... Yet the knowledge of this great truth was not communicated to the people. It was confined to the philosophers; and not improbably one design of the mysteries celebrated throughout Greece was to keep up the knowledge of the one true God."

Benson: "The writings of Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Cicero, and other philosophers, which still remain, together with the quotations made by Just. Martyr and Clem. Alexandrinus from those which are lost, prove that the learned heathen, though ignorant of the way of salvation, were not entirely unacquainted with the unity and spirituality of God, and had pretty just notions of his perfections, of the creation and government of the world, and of the duties which men owe to God and to one another. Their sin, therefore, in worshipping idols, and in concealing the true God from the vulgar, did not proceed so much from ignorance as from corruption of heart."

Poole: "They knew God; they had a natural knowledge of God, it was taught them, as before, by the light of natnre, and by the book of the creatures. Though this was not sufficient to save them, yet it was sufficient to save them without excuse."

And many other such like examples can be brought forth showing the general tenor of thought. But is this idea correct? What does Paul say?

1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The commentators go on about how the eminent philosophers supposedly knew God. Not enough to save them, of course, but enough to make them without excuse. Yet Paul specifically says that the world did not know God, and in fact it did not know God even though it had all its wisdom (philosophy). Paul specifically refutes the idea that the heathen philosophers actually knew God. He certainly did recognise on occassion when the heathen philosophers made statements that corresponded with certain Truths revealed to man from God, but he was adamant that the world's philosophies ("sophia, wisdom") did NOT lead them to know God.

So when the same apostle says "Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not" etc, in order to be consistent, and to allow Paul to not be contradicting himself, he must not be talking about the heathen philosophies or speculations about God. Rather, he must be talking about people who actually knew God, which means the covenant people.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So when the same apostle says "Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not" etc, in order to be consistent, and to allow Paul to not be contradicting himself, he must not be talking about the heathen philosophies or speculations about God. Rather, he must be talking about people who actually knew God, which means the covenant people.

I would also point out that the "heathen philosophers" the commentators speak of, are actually "Greeks" for the most part, which as I mentioned were in fact Israelites who had been divorced by God. So, technically they "knew God", but not via all the philosophical speculations they had.