John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

In spite of allegations that I'm a troll, any reading my first post will get the sense that I'm earnest and sincere when I write. I've only pushed back, being defensive, when others have shoved using unfair tactics, doing so first. I much much much rather would not have gone down that road.

For an example, its been insinuated that I'm a Calvinist and asked to defend the allegation. The same person 'jumped all over me' for using a non-scriptural designation commonly believed by many -- the Age of Conscience. What motivates the using of unscriptural term, Calvinism, while degrading someone for using an unscriptural term, the Age of Conscience? I call this hypocritical-kind-of-fighting for what it is - unfair tactics used to achieve an agenda. Truth-seekers use fair means in discussions, not unfair tactics. Park the agenda, fight fair, but expect some push back from those who don't want to roll over and play dead, especially if it comes from one of the most highly respected posters (I say without any exaggeration, the man is a giant) on the AFF forum.

[donfriesen1]

You'll have to fill me in on this joke. Canadians don't get the joke that Americans do. What's up with Ohio?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

In spite of allegations that I'm a troll, any reading my first post will get the sense that I'm earnest and sincere when I write. I've only pushed back, being defensive, when others have shoved using unfair tactics, doing so first. I much much much rather would not have gone down that road.

For an example, its been insinuated that I'm a Calvinist and asked to defend the allegation. The same person 'jumped all over me' for using a non-scriptural designation commonly believed by many -- the Age of Conscience. What motivates the using of unscriptural term, Calvinism, while degrading someone for using an unscriptural term, the Age of Conscience? I call this hypocritical-kind-of-fighting for what it is - unfair tactics used to achieve an agenda. Truth-seekers use fair means in discussions, not unfair tactics. Park the agenda, fight fair, but expect some push back from those who don't want to roll over and play dead, especially if it comes from one of the most highly respected posters (I say without any exaggeration, the man is a giant) on the AFF forum.

You don’t read posts.

I even gave you my answer in large bolded red font.
Then you came back sniveling on how no one answered you on Cornelius.
Anyone reading your posts would make the same conclusions. That if someone was “righteous” and never heard of Jesus Christ’s Gospel they would go to heaven. Look, Don, you aren’t making a good case concerning your view. Maybe you can win over friends and family with your thoughts. Yet, to others who study the scriptures, your teaching isn’t Biblical. We (the readers of your posts) can’t imagine why you yourself can’t see your error. So, we post back logical answers and you ignore them. You clearly have an amateur view of Romans, and that’s ok. Everyone needs to learn, but when you are wrong you need to admit it and move on. Don’t take the position of an antagonist and try to get everyone in the thread to mock you. Listen, you are just not cut out to teach. I would say you probably would lose your Sunday school students as you messed up the felt board characters. Sit on the pew for a few years, listen to your teachers at your local congregation. Maybe in a few years you’ll be able to hold an intelligent discussion. As for now, I think Joe Biden on his worse day could explain Romans better than you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You'll have to fill me in on this joke. Canadians don't get the joke that Americans do. What's up with Ohio?

That’s a no.

You don’t read our explanations to what you have posted to us. Let alone us trying to explain quips, and sarcasms.

Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I asked Esaias to continue to post because I appreciate his thoughts.

I too appreciate his thoughts. You must be a true friend, standing up to defend your buddy. The world needs more of this. No, not sarcasm.

You on the other hand, no so much.

Let’s take this post for instance. This was uncalled for, and if it was an attempt at sarcasm (which I do appreciate from time to time) you stink at it.

What I said was said in sincerity and not sarcasm. You've misunderstood me. But funny that, you don't call out a poster who calls someone 'sad, deplorable, intellectually dishonest'. This is attacking character and doesn't contribute to a discussion. How does that promote open discussion in AFF? Many thin-skinned would have said 'I'm out of here!'. Yet you take the time to call me out on my post? I'm sincere when I welcome back Esaias and thank you for calling him back in, but I don't appreciate some of the methods he's used.


Anyway Don, you don’t read posts [ and as far technically precise? We are talking about scripture? Therefore you need to get your story straight.] I don't know what this means. If all you want to do is troll and bore us with your opinions on the Bible, then spare us.

I do read the posts but don't respond to each one, for time reasons.

Don, you are wrong, and Esaias is right.

But you know that already. Plz allow me to speak for myself on this.

I hope you keep posting. Let's go forward with a Christian spirit and put the tactics behind. I'm willing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I hope you keep posting. Let's go forward with a Christian spirit and put the tactics behind. I'm willing.

If Cornelius had a vision.

How did he get the vision?

In Acts 8:26-40 the Ethiopian eunuch reads Isaiah 53:7–8. How did Phillip know how to find the eunuch?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, before the first European settlers landed in the Americas were the Indian tribes saved? I mean if they were “right living?”

Would they have gone to Heaven?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1615496]You don’t read posts.

I even gave you my answer in large bolded red font.

You got me shamefaced here.I had not read that post with the large bolded red front. I did not yet have time to read it but would have eventually in a day or two.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Do you not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
Genesis 6:3 (KJV) And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
Why do you think the Spirit strives with men? What do you think He is trying to do?
Psalms 53:2 (KJV) God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God.
And also
Romans 1:20-21 (KJV) 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 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.
The Spirit of God strives with men trying to moving them to seek the Creator of heaven and earth, but they tend to refuse to respond to the call.
If someone seeks the Creator of heaven and earth, He will find a way to reveal Himself to them, whether sending a preacher or leading the person to a preacher or Bible or something. Before Christ, they would have had a revelation of the Most High God, in one way or the other.
Haven’t you seen example of that in the Scriptures?

I'm rightly slapped down and put in my place when shown as having little faith in a mighty, mighty God. Yet I would say this in my defence: Israel was ordained to be a kingdom of priests. Ex 19.6 When he says that they are priests I read it as saying the whole kingdom would be acting as priests of sorts, but not all like the Levitical. As sitting in the crossroads of three continents they were uniquely positioned to share the truth of God to them, but what of N and S America, Australia and the isles; and the souls therein. Yet Israel did a poor job in this mediatorial (priests) role. If the gifts and callings of God are without repentance then what happens when those called to implement God's plan fail? The job doesn't get done, and the world isn't educated in what the Lord wanted to do through Israel -- share the Word. What then of those who never hear from those called to share? God must have an alternate plan for all those who he loves and wishes to bring to heaven, but don't ever hear because the Jew has failed their priestly calling. In his omniscience and foreknowledge God had made a plan for those he loved, the Gentile who doesn't have the knowledge of God because the Jew fails to execute the plan God had put in place. In his foreknowledge the plan which compensated for the Jew's failings was the installation of the conscience. Its role obviously can't ever completely substitute for that which the Jew fails to do but does partially compensate by being a tudor to right living. Could it not be said that the conscience is at work every day as God's tudor, striving to bring the Gentile into right-living, which is the goal of the Gospel or the law, perhaps in compensation for the lack of the knowledge of God the Jew failed to provide. If not fully compensating, then at least partially? Paul speaks of these in Ro2.12-16. They have not the law. Yet they show the work of the law in their hearts. How has the work of the law in their heart been effected? By means of what Paul calls 'nature', which, reading between the lines, in these verses is the conscience.

You reference Ro1.20-21 which talks about the natural world 'speaking to Man who doesn't have the Word. (I've referenced this scripture in my posts in this thread) It speaks what the Word would do if it were present: there is a God. God uses the natural world to strive with Man, uses the conscience to strive with Man, uses his Spirit to strive with Man. As you say "they tend to refuse to respond to the call". Some without the Word respond, be it only conscience they respond to. Short of a miracle, any of these who responds who is thousands of miles and oceans away from Israel will never get to hear the knowledge of God from a Jew. Hypothetically, our faith in God tells us this miracle is possible. We also see examples in the Word showing how God reached some (who play a critical role in the plan of God which may have necessitated extraordinary means to reach them), which doesn't indicate that these same means will be used to reach all those in the same circumstance. But we live in a practical world and my practical mind tells me it is unlikely if the way God ordained to achieve this, the Jew, fails to do its job, that it will happen. God will then resort to a plan B: allowing any righteously-acting Gentile who has responded only to their conscience, into heaven on the merits of their conscience. A just and a caring God doesn't leave any of them dangling without any hope but makes provision for them throught the conscience. If not, then the conscience isn't doing its job and the Lord has wasted his efforts and skills putting it into Man.

Many on this thread quote profusely the scriptures which apply truthfully to those who have heard the Gospel -- they have the Word and will be judged by the Word. But what of those who haven't heard the Word? Paul also says that those before the Law don't have their sin imputed. The principle here is that those who haven't heard the Word don't get judged by the Word and don't get their sin imputed to them in Judgment. Why can't the same principle be applied to the Gospel -- that all those who have never heard the Gospel won't have the rules of the Gospel applied to them. Why does moving into the Church Age suddenly result in, as many commenters in the thread contend, any and all (even those living right by the conscience) will go to hell even if they've never, ever heard the Word in any form. The principle of "not imputing when someone hasn't heard" should be the same whether it is before the Law, in the Law or in Gospel. Why should it be thought that this principle only applies to one Age and not all Ages? What prevents the thought that it is not a universal principle for all people of all times? Those who have not heard will not have their sin imputed.

I contend the Word shows: God will judge by the conscience, those few who have never heard the Word in any form, by that internal "Word of God" called the conscience, given to all living in all Ages. If the Gospel is the only means of determining righteousness for entrance to heaven, then why does he use the conscience to Judge men's secret thoughts? He does not leave himself without a witness to truth and will not be seen to judge unfairly on that Great Day.

Paul says in Ro2.12-16 that those with a clean conscience get into heaven. Amen, good teaching Don.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I even gave you my answer in large bolded red font.

You got me shamefaced here.

I had not read that post

with the large bolded red front. I did not yet have time to read it but would have eventually in a day or two.

I rest my case.