John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Amanah]

Firstly, the illustration of the king and the fields is a poor representation of the Gospel. The Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift of grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ, not a reward for good works (Romans 3:24, Romans 5:15-18, Romans 6:23).

In Romans 2:12-16, Paul is not teaching that those who have never heard the Gospel will be saved by their good works or conscience. Rather, he is emphasizing that Gentiles who have not received the law still have a moral consciousness and are accountable to God for their actions. The passage is actually highlighting the universal guilt of humanity and the need for salvation through Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Romans 3:20 and Romans 3:28 clearly state that no one will be justified by works of the law or good deeds, but only through faith in Jesus Christ. The conscience is not a means of justification or salvation; it is a witness to God's law and our sinfulness (Romans 2:14-15).

Lastly, the idea that God would be unjust to condemn those who have never heard the Gospel is a misunderstanding of God's character and the nature of sin. God is not obligated to save anyone, and our sinfulness separates us from Him. The Gospel is not a matter of "getting what we deserve" but rather receiving grace and mercy through Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, the argument presented distorts the biblical teaching on salvation, the conscience, and God's character. Romans 3:24-25 sums it up: "and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith."

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

On the one hand you say people can be saved by "right-living" and "their righteousness" without faith in Jesus Christ, then when you get called out on it as legalism you say we are "stretching your words" and that you "believe no such thing". It is apparent that you do not THINK of yourself as a legalist. But that doesn't make it so.

You say people have some kind of belief "there is a God", and this qualifies as "faith" in the context of being "saved by faith". Yet the Bible says this about believing "there is a God":

James 2:19 KJV
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Just because people "believe there is a God" does NOT mean they have Biblical, saving, justifying faith. Wow . Is this the best you can do? Lets examine your comparison. On one side we have demons and on the other we have some who've shown the work of the law in their hearts. That is not comparing apples with apples. A man with your experience must do better than this.

As for people being justified by "their righteousness" (as I quoted you saying, look at it! It's right there at the top of this post, in the second quotation from you!):

Romans 10:3 KJV
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Justification and salvation ARE NOT BASED upon one's OWN righteousness.

You complain about being mislabeled as a legalist who believes in salvation by works, yet that is exactly what you promote. Nah, this is using a distortion method. I've shown these who show the work of the law in their heart as believing in God and following a God-given method -- the conscience. It fails to portray justification by good works as you attempt to twist it to mean. Sorry if the truth doesn't sit well with you, but it is the plain simple truth, based entirely upon your own statements. It is not said to "discredit" anything, it is simply pointing out your own words and the logical conclusions from those words.

I'll let whoever reads this thread decide for themselves whether or not you are promoting salvation by works and self-righteousness by "some". I do not expect you to acknowledge it, even though you previously answered "yes" to the question "are you teaching some can be saved by works" Here is an example of distorting what someone says and avoiding the gist. etc.

Plz try again. You're a good man that can do better.

Do you aree with those who would condemn righteous Cornelius , sending him to hell, or would you agrre with Luke's assessment that he was righteous, Ac10.2?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz try again. You're a good man that can do better.

Do you aree with those who would condemn righteous Cornelius , sending him to hell, or would you agrre with Luke's assessment that he was righteous, Ac10.2?

If Cornelius NEVER accepted the Christ he would of NEVER made Heaven his home.

Don, you have zero defense for your salvation by being "right living" righteous, being a good Yeshiva student. Always kissing the mezuzah on the door post of your home will not make heaven your home. Being a righteous nice person who loves Wakan Tanka, and has never heard of the Gospel of Christ isn't saved.

You believe God is unjust because He doesn't save Borneo head hunters.

You have no understanding of the Gospel.

Don, you mentioned that you were pouring mud, and hammering nails in Canada for 50 years. How long were you in a Apostolic Pentecostal church?

Because my man, you need some Bible more than the breath of life.

[Amanah]

The Wimpy Warrior

A scrawny, pint-sized man named Pete swaggered into the local tavern, his chest puffed out like a rooster. He boasted to the bartender, "I'm here to find the strongest guy in the room and challenge him to a fight!"

The patrons chuckled and whispered to each other, amused by Pete's bold claim. One burly man, a blacksmith named Max, looked up from his ale and raised an eyebrow. "You think you can take on the strongest guy here, little man?"

Pete, undaunted, strutted over to Max and poked him in the chest. "Yeah, I'm the greatest warrior this side of the river! No one can beat me!"

Max, entertained by Pete's bravado, decided to play along. "Alright, little man, let's see what you're made of." He stood up, towering over Pete, and flexed his massive arms.

Pete, realizing too late that he had bitten off more than he could chew, stumbled backward, tripping over his own feet. Max burst out laughing, and the tavern patrons joined in, ridiculing Pete's foolishness.

As Pete slunk away, defeated and embarrassed, Max called out, "Next time, little man, don't try to pick a fight with someone who can actually swing a hammer!"

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I reduced your Bible quotes to fit 12,000 and for some reason the system has eliminated your quotes of my previous comments. Oh, well.
Genesis 26:5 KJV
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Abraham knew...where he got any of that information?Quote:
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).Why do you waste time making points like these?

Genesis 5:22 KJV
And Enoch walked with God

What does it mean to "walk with God"? You make a good point here. What do people do in the absense of details. We make assumptions based on available knowledge, but are assumptions. Clearly the Law was given much later; to Moses, and Paul says that there was no law before this. I prefer to rely on these facts more heavily though I know quite well that the 'walk' that is here, is similar to that seen in later examples as a result of, in many instances, from walking with the Word. That there are later similar examples of walking withe the Word is not evidence that any in the age of Conscience did though similar in appearance, because it results in contradicting known facts. It is most logical to agree with known facts in this instance, even while logical to wrongly assume they had law.

Genesis 6:9 KJV
Noah walked with God.

Noah walked in what God told him.[INDENT]Genesis 17:1 KJV
Abraham walked in what God told him. [/COLOR]

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 KJV
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee...?

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...he pleased God[/B].

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.

True, errr...mostly I agree. Did your mother ever preach to you about living right. Does that make her a prophet? Many Mom's who don't have the Word preach to their kids . What you describe here does not give concrete evidence that they had the Word. To say they do contradicts Paul, Ro5.13. Why do you wish to be seen contradicting Paul?

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!
Wow. Are we getting technical and picky about words here, or what. It appears you plainly contradict Paul when he plainly says there was no law. We know the Law came by Moses. And you're up to your old tricks to discredit someone when you have an agenda. I clearlly addressed how sin was in the world without law in my post but you use tricks like this to attempt to show that I hadn't. You may be only fooling yourself. You've got it in you to do better than this. But if you keep this up you'll end up discouraging commenters from wanting to make there points.

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.

In Adam all die. It is in the genes, in our nature. Should a baby die before birth or in early infancy does your theology condemn such a one to hell becuse they aren't born again, or does another aspect of theology kick in and allow them entrance to heaven? Paul's, and mine would say this one would go to heaven not hell. Yours condemns them because they weren't born again, right? Or do I misinterpret your theology and distort it like you do the Word when you leave portions out, like what Paul says in Ro2.12-16? Do babies who aren't born again go to heaven or hell? My bet is the are judged as people who haven't heard the Word because they have never had a chance, just like the Gentiles who never got a chance to hear the Gospel but whose conscience allows them into heaven when clear. Are you ready to come over to Paul's side? Do you say Uncle?

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.

You again make a very good point. God's eternal moral law, you say? Are we getting away from what is written law? You may be starting to talk about what I've been talking about in a post where I've said God has an internal law which is passed to us in the image of God, which the conscience is part of. You'll now get an Amen from my corner. Keep going on this path and we'll end up meeting at the point where Paul says that a Man's clean conscience will grant him entrance to heaven when he hasn't heard about the new birth. Have my arguments been getting to you? Hallelijah! Sarcasm: don't let your friends know because they might have to change their minds too.

I'm having fun with this and glad I was able to catch up on my reading your posts.

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"). I don't think I agree with the thought that it is the Sinaic Covenant. I would describe that as including the ceremonial part. I see Paul refering to the 10 Commandments, which were given for all humanity, but also was incorporated for keeping in the Sinaic covenant. The Gentiles he speaks of however, do in fact the things contained in the law, but not the ceremonial laws of sacrificethey 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.

Of course it does. No one can deny this. But to disallow that God has other tools which bring about changes in Man's behaviour says that God has limited means of accomplishing his purposes. God's infinite wisdom isn't limited to one method. To say that the new birth is the only way to effect changes in the heart limits God. Not this comedian. (Did you see what I did there? I've called my self a comedian and there will be some who will jump all over it and use it against me. Thats what they do. They pick on meaningless details, like it being unscriptural to say the time before the giving of the law wasn't called the time of Conscience, and avoid the gist of the general. Because that's what they do when they have an agenda.)

More importantly, Paul identifies these Gentiles as having an inward spiritual heart circumcision:
[INDENT]Romans 2:25-29 KJV

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.

Ro2.12-16 is separate from 25-29 for a reason. He speaks specifically about a certain group in 12-16, about some who have not heard but show the work of the law in their heart. He speaks generally about all Gentiles in 25-29. These are two separate examples though both have the word, Gentile, in common. But you knew this, right?

Who is "circumcised in heart"? Heathens who have a vague sense of right and wrong? No. CHRISTIANS: Whats done here is to cloud the issue by saying some, me, has said something when they haven't said any such thing.

Colossians 2:8-13 KJV

Amen!

Philippians 3:3 KJV

Amen!

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.

Any who have the Gospel also have the law. Any preacher of the NT also has the OT. Therefor these here cannot have the Gospel, because Paul says they don't have the law. The changes that have taken place in the heart have come by another means, which those who deny God can use other means, attribute to the only thing they want to acknowledge -- the Gospel. No none should want to deny the Gospel for that is the will of God in the church age for full NT new birth salvation by faith and grace. Paul says the thing which effects the writing/showing of the law in the hearts of the heart is 'nature'. The context of this Ro2.12-16 passage makes this nature to be the conscience, not the Word. But there will be some who won't acknowledge what Paul says, that they don't have the Word/Gospel and keep denying that God can bring about changes by other means than the new birth, because they have an agenda.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If Cornelius NEVER accepted the Christ he would of NEVER made Heaven his home. I agree, had Cornelius rejected the Gospel that Peter came to save him with, had he stayed on this path till death, then he would have been a doomed man. So, Evang. B -- you get my Amen! on that.

Don, you have zero defense for your salvation by being "right living" righteous, being a good Yeshiva student. Always kissing the mezuzah on the door post of your home will not make heaven your home. Being a righteous nice person who loves Wakan Tanka, and has never heard of the Gospel of Christ isn't saved.

You believe God is unjust because He doesn't save Borneo head hunters.

You have no understanding of the Gospel.

Don, you mentioned that you were pouring mud, and hammering nails in Canada for 50 years. How long were you in a Apostolic Pentecostal church?

Because my man, you need some Bible more than the breath of life.

That's what they do when they can't attack the arguments, they attack the character.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

That's what they do when they can't attack the arguments, they attack the character.

Get off it. How old are you? I posted my answer in bolded red LARGE font. Knowing full well it would get ignored. Guess what Don, you didn’t disappoint.
You went on to go after Esaias and claimed “no one answered” your question on Cornelius. Now it looks like you don’t read your own posts. You attacked Esaias, and never dealt with his posts. Therefore your above statement is on you.

Your doctrine on works salvation is what you have failed to defend.

I’ll give you one verse

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your OWN doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Do you have the foggiest idea what that means? I would have to say NO!

For the simple reasons that after reading your lengthy wordy posts, I can only say you believe in salvation by works. You have said that in Romans 2:14-16 is about people who have never read the Law, or even heard of the Law. But have the Law written on their hearts. Yet can bypass the Gospel and gain salvation. If that doesn’t sound like what you believe, then buddy boy, you don’t even understand the implications of what you believe. Jesus is the way truth and the life, NO MAN comes unto the Father but through Jesus Christ.

Cornelius was righteous therefore his prayers came up before God as a memorial. Therefore he was given a vision. He was told in the vision to get Peter. The rest is in Acts 10. If someone is “righteous” or “right living” God knows how to reach out to them no matter where they are. God told Phillip to join himself to the Ethiopian eunuch. Have a little faith Don, instead of claiming God is a bad guy because He isn’t doing things as you feel He should. Know full well that God still can talk to people, and still give visions.

Yet, any sarcasms you receive are throughly well deserved my boy.

So, try to make some coherent statements concerning your teaching.

Otherwise try another topic because you ran out of gas on this one.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Any who have the Gospel also have the law. Any preacher of the NT also has the OT. Therefor these here cannot have the Gospel, because Paul says they don't have the law. The changes that have taken place in the heart have come by another means, which those who deny God can use other means, attribute to the only thing they want to acknowledge -- the Gospel. No none should want to deny the Gospel for that is the will of God in the church age for full NT new birth salvation by faith and grace. Paul says the thing which effects the writing/showing of the law in the hearts of the heart is 'nature'. The context of this Ro2.12-16 passage makes this nature to be the conscience, not the Word. But there will be some who won't acknowledge what Paul says, that they don't have the Word/Gospel and keep denying that God can bring about changes by other means than the new birth, because they have an agenda.

Don, it looks like we can stick a fork in this, because it’s about done. You are throughly a smoked anchovy. There’s no discussion here. You are Biblically incoherent when it comes to this subject. Church age? Now that’s something that would be like drilling a nerve in a tooth then pouring ice cold water on it. Talking to you on your thoughts concerning End Times. Not that I would want to do that. You can’t even hold a conversation concerning soteriology let alone eschatology.
I just noticed this thread says Part2? Who were the poor souls that had to suffer you in Part 1? Hey, Don? Do you think you could make your posts just a little longer? How about making all the font lime green?

Anyway where did you attend church?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

A king comes to town where people are afflicted with scurvy.

See? Legalism views sin as a disease rather than a crime.

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?

Matthew 22:1-14 KJV
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, [2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, [3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. [4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. [5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: [6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. [7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. [8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. [9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. [10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests. [11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

Seems like Jesus answered your question. Here's another:

John 10:1-11 KJV
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. [2] But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. [3] To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. [4] And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. [5] And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. [6] This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. [7] Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. [8] All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. [9] I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. [10] The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. [11] I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The Wimpy Warrior

A scrawny, pint-sized man named Pete swaggered into the local tavern, his chest puffed out like a rooster. He boasted to the bartender, "I'm here to find the strongest guy in the room and challenge him to a fight!"

The patrons chuckled and whispered to each other, amused by Pete's bold claim. One burly man, a blacksmith named Max, looked up from his ale and raised an eyebrow. "You think you can take on the strongest guy here, little man?"

Pete, undaunted, strutted over to Max and poked him in the chest. "Yeah, I'm the greatest warrior this side of the river! No one can beat me!"

Max, entertained by Pete's bravado, decided to play along. "Alright, little man, let's see what you're made of." He stood up, towering over Pete, and flexed his massive arms.

Pete, realizing too late that he had bitten off more than he could chew, stumbled backward, tripping over his own feet. Max burst out laughing, and the tavern patrons joined in, ridiculing Pete's foolishness.

As Pete slunk away, defeated and embarrassed, Max called out, "Next time, little man, don't try to pick a fight with someone who can actually swing a hammer!"