John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are as lost as a potato.

Anyway, show me the verse which says “church age?”

[Amanah]

Don, your position is that:

1. Israel failed in their priestly role to share God's truth with the world.
2. God has an alternate plan for those who never hear the Word, which is the conscience.
3. The conscience partially compensates for the lack of knowledge of God and guides people towards right living.
4. Those who respond to their conscience, even if they never hear the Word, will be judged by their conscience and potentially enter heaven.

However, your position misunderstands key aspects of Romans 3 and the biblical teaching on righteousness:

1. Righteousness is not achieved through human effort or the conscience, but through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-24).
2. The conscience is not a substitute for the Word of God, but rather a witness to the truth (Romans 2:12-16).
3. The Gospel is the only means of salvation, and those who never hear the Word are not exempt from judgment (Romans 1:20-21, Romans 2:5-11).
4. God's judgment is not based on human merit or the conscience, but on His own righteousness and justice (Romans 2:5-11).

In summary, while the conscience plays a role in guiding human behavior, it is not a substitute for the Word of God or a means of achieving righteousness. The Gospel is the only way of salvation, and those who never hear the Word are still accountable to God's justice.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Moving from the other thread to here to consolidate the discussion:



I think you have misinterpreted (or misapplied) this passage in Romans to unregenerate persons. Paul speaks of these gentiles as "showing the work of the law written in their hearts". The Bible identifies the writing of the law in the heart as a key element of the new covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 8:6-10 KJV
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The old covenant did not produce a people that bore the fruits of righteousness, reflecting God's moral character in their lives. The new covenant was established to remedy that problem, to produce obedience, to produce a people who did in fact reflect the character of our Father:

Romans 8:3-7 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then when Paul speaks of the uncircumcised actually doing the things contained in the law, thus showing the "work of the law written in their hearts", these must of necessity be regenerated persons, people in the new covenant, who have experienced the writing of God's law in the heart by the Spirit of God, even though they are not physically circumcised.

So it seems the context of Paul's words is those who are in the new covenant, that the uncircumcised (gentile Christian) would be justified rather than the circumcised (Jewish non-christian), that the disobedient but circumcised Jew would fare worse than the obedient but uncircumcised Christian.

Bump

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, your position is that:

1. Israel failed in their priestly role to share God's truth with the world.
2. God has an alternate plan for those who never hear the Word, which is the conscience.
3. The conscience partially compensates for the lack of knowledge of God and guides people towards right living.
4. Those who respond to their conscience, even if they never hear the Word, will be judged by their conscience and potentially enter heaven.

However, your position misunderstands key aspects of Romans 3 and the biblical teaching on righteousness:

1. Righteousness is not achieved through human effort or the conscience, but through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-24).
2. The conscience is not a substitute for the Word of God, but rather a witness to the truth (Romans 2:12-16).
3. The Gospel is the only means of salvation, and those who never hear the Word are not exempt from judgment (Romans 1:20-21, Romans 2:5-11).
4. God's judgment is not based on human merit or the conscience, but on His own righteousness and justice (Romans 2:5-11).

In summary, while the conscience plays a role in guiding human behavior, it is not a substitute for the Word of God or a means of achieving righteousness. The Gospel is the only way of salvation, and those who never hear the Word are still accountable to God's justice.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

That is a good relevant question; and hard to answer in a few words. Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God? Or is it here: Love God, that is the great commandment, and your neighbour as yourself? Perhaps, in the context of this Ro2 discussion, it would be best to let the scripture define it. Paul describes a right-living man as one who shows the work of the law written on his heart. Come judgement day this right-living man has a heart and conscience which doesn't condemn him. Your turn. How would you describe a right-living man?

Don, which law is written on a man’s heart according to the Apostle?
If it is the Ten Commandments then which god is he or she not supposed to take in vain? Allah? Zeus? Beelzebub? Shiva? Krishna? Thor? Hulk?

According to you, when these “right living” led by their conscience individuals stand before the Bema Seat, they are going to look up at Jesus, and say “who are you?!?!”

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

A just and a caring God doesn't leave any of them dangling without any hope but makes provision for them throught the conscience.

Don doesn't see it, but this is the essence of legalism. That God OWES people heaven. That God OWES people "a chance to be saved". As if sin and condemnation and judgment were a series of unfortunate events that befall helpless innocent mankind, like some random disease or plague. God, who has the POWER to save from hell, must of necessity (in the legalist scheme of things) provide a remedy for not just anyone, but everyone. God offers salvation through the Gospel, but that isn't good enough for the legalist. What of those who never heard the Gospel, they ask? It would be UNFAIR and UNRIGHTEOUS for God to judge such person without giving them a chance at salvation, also.

So legalists come up with various schemes to uphold the justness and fairness and "loving-ness" of God. Without these various interventions, God would be unjust and unloving. This is due to the nature and scope of legalism, it is due to the legalist's mindset and worldview.

Some schemes are "everyone who died without hearing the Gospel will be resurrected, and be given a chance to hear and accept the Gospel, or reject it, in the Millennium." Another scheme is "Such persons will be resurrected on judgment day and will then be given the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel." Another scheme, far more consistent, is simple universalism - all will be saved eventually anyway, because God is just and loving and not willing that any should perish but that all should eventually be saved. And of course there is the one we are presented with in this thread - "all who die before hearing the Gospel will be judged by their conscience, and thus some will be righteous (right living) enough to enter heaven."

All these are predicated upon a legalistic mindset, that eternal life, justification, salvation, are matters of LAW and JUSTICE and not MERCY and GRACE. That salvation depends on justice and not pardon. So the legalist just cannot wrap their heads around the idea that everybody is ALREADY GUILTY AND CONDEMNED for their CRIMES AGAINST GOD'S HOLY MORAL LAW (sin), And that salvation is ONLY a matter of GRACE, PARDON, MERCY. They cannot accept the idea that God doesn't OWE anybody anything except punishment, and that salvation is a matter of God choosing to show mercy to whom He will.

Romans 9:14-16 KJV
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This is the truth that the legalist mind cannot grasp, and will not accept.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don doesn't see it, but this is the essence of legalism. That God OWES people heaven. That God OWES people "a chance to be saved". As if sin and condemnation and judgment were a series of unfortunate events that befall helpless innocent mankind, like some random disease or plague. God, who has the POWER to save from hell, must of necessity (in the legalist scheme of things) provide a remedy for not just anyone, but everyone. God offers salvation through the Gospel, but that isn't good enough for the legalist. What of those who never heard the Gospel, they ask? It would be UNFAIR and UNRIGHTEOUS for God to judge such person without giving them a chance at salvation, also.

So legalists come up with various schemes to uphold the justness and fairness and "loving-ness" of God. Without these various interventions, God would be unjust and unloving. This is due to the nature and scope of legalism, it is due to the legalist's mindset and worldview.

Some schemes are "everyone who died without hearing the Gospel will be resurrected, and be given a chance to hear and accept the Gospel, or reject it, in the Millennium." Another scheme is "Such persons will be resurrected on judgment day and will then be given the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel." Another scheme, far more consistent, is simple universalism - all will be saved eventually anyway, because God is just and loving and not willing that any should perish but that all should eventually be saved. And of course there is the one we are presented with in this thread - "all who die before hearing the Gospel will be judged by their conscience, and thus some will be righteous (right living) enough to enter heaven."

All these are predicated upon a legalistic mindset, that eternal life, justification, salvation, are matters of LAW and JUSTICE and not MERCY and GRACE. That salvation depends on justice and not pardon. So the legalist just cannot wrap their heads around the idea that everybody is ALREADY GUILTY AND CONDEMNED for their CRIMES AGAINST GOD'S HOLY MORAL LAW (sin), And that salvation is ONLY a matter of GRACE, PARDON, MERCY. They cannot accept the idea that God doesn't OWE anybody anything except punishment, and that salvation is a matter of God choosing to show mercy to whom He will.

Romans 9:14-16 KJV
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This is the truth that the legalist mind cannot grasp, and will not accept.

I know the Bible is right!

Somebody's wrong!

Thank you Esaias for yet another tasty treat.

[Amanah]

We might not be making much progress with Don,
But we are still having fun!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We might not be making much progress with Don,
But we are still having fun!

[donfriesen1]

A king comes to town where people are afflicted with scurvy. If you work in my fields I'll give you fruit: apples, oranges and bananas. Sign-up at the table. Everyone who signs up will get a stamp on their hand and get some fruit at the end of the day and get to live in my mansion and drive my limo. Some sign-up and work in the fields. A man who was out of town when the King came, comes back to town. Seeing the town folk working in the fields he starts working too but doesn't ever find out about the stamp. At the end of the day people line up for their apples, oranges, bananas and so does the man without the stamp. The King sees this man without the stamp. What will the kind and just king do with the one who never got the stamp? Will he send him packing, judge him as a unfit scoundrel? I saw you in the fields the King says. I'll give you just oranges even though you haven't got the stamp. The King honours his labours even though the man who was travelling hasn't entered into an agreement. He gets to move into the mansion but doesn't get to drive the limo, like people with the stamp do. [Before you jump all over me accusing me of portraying salvation by good works by this illustration, plz just take the illustration's main points for what they are worth. But I'm afraid that won't happen. Some people enter into an agreement. Some don't get the chance and don't get the benefits which the good King wanted to share with everyone.] How does the agreement the King makes with one affect any other person? It doesn't. Its just between them and the King, and all others are outside of their relationship/agreement rules. That some have an agreement doesn't prevent the King's relationship with those not having an agreement. See Mt 20.1-14, 15, 16. He will do what is right in all his relationships, those with or without an agreement, when he is a just King.

The way you'all describe NT salvation is, a person can't get any rewards at all from God unless they enter into a covenant relationship with him. No agreement - then no rewards at all, period. Do I understand you'all correctly in this? The way you describe it, because God provides and desires all to enter into covenant, that if any doesn't enter that covenant then God is going to cut- off from any rewards any who are living right without an agreement. Does God want all to enter into the agreement? Yes, of course, that is his perfect will, that all enter into agreement and get full rewards, but when that doesn't happen that doesn't prevent his kindness in those who haven't ever heard that an agreement is possible. God does not punish those who don't have an agreement by denying them any reward for right living. To contend so would make the Lord appear as unjust if it is said he sends to hell those who fail to enter into the agreement. Will someone who hears about the agreement, but refuses to enter it even though they now know about it, will they get rewarded? How could they when they've purposely rejected the Lord's will when they say they obey it? But because some reject God's will and some don't, doesn't mean that God will not show kindness to those who've never heard but are living right. As much as we'd like to think that everyone has heard the Gospel, in spite of the proliferation of its communication today, there are some who haven't heard, few though they may be. That is what Paul addresses in Ro2.12-16. The few who have never heard.

The way righteous Cornelius, Ac10.2, is condemned by your theology when it condemns him while he is living righteous, it distorts the justice of God. That's not my Jesus you're describing and you make-up another Jesus by it. Stop it already. Jesus said make right judgment of things.

Jesus certainly wants to see every last person born again, by faith and not good works alone. But not every last person has the opportunity to hear the Gospel. This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16. In spite of the proliferation of verses which appear to be to the contrary because they apply to those who have heard, Paul would say these do not apply because they have never heard. Those who have not heard are not judged the same as those who have, inspite of the verses which say all are quilty of sin. By 'nature' changes occur in their heart which results in them showing the work of the law in their heart. This speaks of righteousness, right? And that coming about by that which you'll call good works. Abraham believed the voice of God. These believe another type of voice, the conscience and it produces the same effect that Abraham had. Obedience. As a sign to his faith he is circumcized. The way you'all describe salvation by faith, Abrahams works of circumcism are good works for salvation. Those who obey God's voice of conscience obey as Abraham did with good works, but these are just a sign of the inner workings of God in the heart. Its not too late to change your theology to accomodate what God would like to do in the heart by conscience. The way you'll all describe it conscience doesn't exist and the only means of effecting righteousness is the Gospel. Sorry, you're too late. The effect of the conscience has been around a lot longer than the Gospel.

Many have heard of a concept in law which is called precedence. Current judges rule today by the precedence that previous rulings have shown. God has set precedence by first ruling in the Age of Conscience by conscience, when there was no law. To be seen as fair and just, the precedence set by his previous righteousness and omniscience using the conscience then, must be adhered to in all other cases coming afterward. Because he was right by the perfection of his Being, in the first judgments, he must continue to use these same standards or be seen as contradicting himself. Can God contradict himself and show himself wrong? I think not. By your theological methods you prevent this, saying God has changed his mind about using the conscience, when most Christians believe the conscience will be examined at the White Throne. By your theology you state the only standard used is the new birth. You make God to be someone who would send right living people to hell. But you've dug yourself in deep and will not likely have the abilities to change your theology to accomodate its place in what God intended when he first thought up its concept. In stead you will get technically precise by quoting scriptures which apply to those who have heard and miss the boat about the conscience. Get on Paul's boat. He believes on both. But instead you will continue to discredit the main points I've made by deflecting thought to minor details which can be twisted to say almost anything.