John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Hey, E. B. I always wondered what Evang is a contraction of. Care to say?

No

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You make a good point. Any other comments on this post would also be welcomed.

Your interpretation of Romans 2 is wrong.

Anything else I can help you with?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your interpretation of Romans 2 is wrong.

Anything else I can help you with?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, there isn’t much to add to this discussion. You aren’t adding anything new. You are pretty much at this point just repeating yourself. If you have any other thoughts on other topics feel free to start another thread or join another topic. But pretty much on this subject you are wrong. You hold a doctrine because of your feelings on how you see God as being unfair. Ok, you haven’t convinced us.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, there isn’t much to add to this discussion. You aren’t adding anything new. You are pretty much at this point just repeating yourself. True, and I had been thinking along the same lines. Thx for all your inputs in the thread if you are bowing out. If you have any other thoughts on other topics feel free to start another thread or join another topic. But pretty much on this subject you are wrong.. Just saying it is wrong proves nothing, the same as contentions that say it is right. The evidence I've presented are the Biblical principles used. Prove the misuse of the principles and then you're proving something. Instead, believe what the principles show. I've never denied that the Bible shows justification by faith in the shed blood of Jesus by obedience to the Gospel. It is my doctrine as much as yours. But it doesn't apply or have force in those who have never heard it. The stance you take of its force shows you denying that the principle Paul shows in Ro5.13: God does not judge by the Word those who haven't heard it. Why do you not agree with Paul on this principle? What prevents your faith in Ro5.13? You hold a doctrine because of your feelings on how you see God as being unfair. Well...... Dom, I've actually got a different twist than the distorting you attempt to show of me in that statement. I don't think God is unfair, like you attempt to say of me. I actually think the God, who is seen as more fair because he allows more of the righteous into heaven by using both the conscience and the Gospel (as opposed to others who show God as less fair by only using the Gospel to judge by and therefore allowing less of the righteous into heaven), is actually a just, consistent God, who continues to use justice methods (the conscience) he previously used as still remaining viable and active at the Last Judgment; that he will justly provide entrance to heaven to those who have a righteous clear conscience but never have heard the Gospel. The just God I portray actually thereby shows admittance to more people, not d.mning rigidly only by the gospel those who have never heard the gospel, sending them to hell. The unfair ones are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that: God does not judge by the Word those who have never heard the Word, Ro5.13 and would deny them entrance to heaven thereby. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this principle? The unfair ones ignore this principle and deny its application, thereby saying that God does not use it and would send righteous acting people who haven't heard the Word to hell. How does saying God d.mns righteous people show him as fair? It doesn't. Any doing so produce a Jesus that isn't shown in the Bible, making another God. My efforts are to represent Jesus as he is -- just and fair. Not acquitting the guilty not d.mning the righteous. Ok, you haven’t convinced us.. I can't convince any which the Word-arguments I've used can't convince. Denyers of the Word can't be convinced. Put aside and deny what ever it is that keeps you from believing Ro5.13 and believe the whole Word.

I'd like to point out that you have neither agreed nor disagreed with some of my key points. Why the silence? You have great experience and knowledge that should elicit some response to them.

[Amanah]

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your interpretation of Romans 2 is wrong.

Anything else I can help you with?

Yes, there certainly is.

1. Agree with Paul on the principle that: God does not judge any by the Word who have not heard the Word, Ro 5.13, or show the principle as understood wrong.
   
2. Agree with Paul that these Gentiles of Ro2.12-16 are not judged by the Word they do not have, but by the conscience; or find a way to show Paul saying they have the Word, when he says they don't.
   
3. Agree that the Lord has placed a kind of internal law in Man, which is placed when making Man in his image. This 'internal law' is the conscience and God uses it in all ages to judge Man. Or find a way to show this is false.
   
4. Agree with the Bible that righteous-living people who haven't heard the Gospel are judged fit for heaven by the conscience, even if the Lord has provided this Gospel-covenant in the Age these live in. Or show how the Gospel negates the Lord's use of the conscience-method which the Lord has internalized in Man's nature in every Man in every age. Can you do this using scripture?
   
5. Agree with the fact that babies are admitted to heaven, judged as fit for heaven by a standard other than the new birth. Agree that this shows God judging by means other than the new birth. Surely you would agree, right?
   
6. Agree with Paul when he says those in the Age of Conscience had sin, even though he says that they had no law. Agree that their sin was against an internal law placed by the image of God in Man, and wasn't against spoken or written law which wasn't yet given. Or show how or when God had given law before the 10 Commandments and these 'dead in Adam' are dead by other than the internal law.
   
7. Agree that, though born again Christians say they are saved apart from good works, that Christians must show cooperation (a good work) with God's provided salvation method, by obedience (a good work) to commands for faith, repentance, baptism, living a godly life (which are all good works without which heaven isn't achieved). Christians therefore are saved by good works. Or show these are not good works. People without the Word, obeying the conscience, show something similar to what is working in those who hear and obey the Word, and are thus righteous by a similar kind of faith and obedience, or show the error in this reasoning.
   
8. Agree that the Lord has used the conscience in the past as a measurement method, resulting in the Flood judgment. And agree that the Lord sets precedence thereby, to also use the conscience in future judgments of Man's fitness for heaven or hell. Or show means whereby the Lord can cast away a past judgment method, never to use such methods again. The use of the conscience at the Last Judgment doesn't disagree with this set-precedence. Or show how God puts away the use of the conscience method in the last judgment.
   
9. Agree that the Lord is not limited in his abilities to produce a change in the heart, that he isn't limited to only one method (the new birth) to do so, that his infinte wisdom and omniscience can produce other ways to achieve this. Or show how the infinite God is limited to only one way.
   
10. Agree that the nature Paul speaks of in Ro2.12-16 produces a change in the heart/behaviour of these Gentiles and it is not the Gospel working in their heart, because any having the Gospel also have the law; and Paul says these have no law. Or show that nature here actually refers to the Word, not the conscience.
    
11. Agree with Paul when he says those in the Age of Conscience don't have the law and that something else is working in them to cause men like Enoch to live righteous. Or show something besides 'assuming or just saying they must have had the Word' that these actually have the Word which doesn't contradict Paul when he says they don't.
    
12. Agree with the fact that these in Ro 2.12-16 who respond to the conscience with a change in behaviour are responding to a God-given internally placed method which is a similar response as those who hear the Word and change their behaviour, and doing so are similarly showing a faith in God's provided method and aren't attempting to gain righteousness by their good works alone. Or show how these responses in both are actually attempts to gain righteousness by good works alone without any reliance on what God provides.

How will Esaias respond? Will he show clear responses scripturally? Will he show responses (which aren't really worthy to be called responses) like deep, theologically detailed responses of: 'you are wrong', 'you are a lost potatoe' perhaps even stepping lower and calling me a 'wet noodle'? Perhaps you and your buddy Dom + Amanah can put your heads together and respond to these points. We know they have great depth of knowledge and experience but will their response be character disparagings (because that's what they do) instead of referring to scriptural principles, or will the agenda kick in and defer to other 'political attack-style' responses? Let's wait to see.

There is a saying. "Put up or shut up", which means Put Up evidence to disprove or Shut Up the comments just saying something someone else says isn't true.

[donfriesen1]

Anyone reading these posts will agree that I've applied Biblical principles in interpretting what Paul says in Ro2.12-16.

We will see which principles Amanah, Dom and Esaias use.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes, there certainly is.
[LIST=1][*]Agree with Paul ...


There is a saying. "Put up or shut up", which means Put Up evidence to disprove or Shut Up the comments just saying something someone else says isn't true.
[/COLOR]

The problem is you think "discussing your ideas" means everybody agreeing with you. Then you substitute agreeing with you with "agree with Paul".

The truth is I DO agree with Paul, you DON'T. I already gave scriptural evidence (proof even, plainly stated by Scripture) which directly and unequivocally contradicts and refutes your ideas.
Why don't you agree with Paul that by works NOBODY shall be justified including your "right living" Sentinel Island tribesman?

You were asked to "put up or shut up" and you chose instead to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum, you simply repeated your claims while playing the victim of "nit picking".

So, sorry, I am afraid it doesn't seem as if I can help you out any more than I already have.

[Amanah]

From my ESV Study Bible, here are the themes of Romans


1. All people are sinners, therefore all, without exception, need to be saved from their sin. 1:18–3:20; 5:12–19
2. The Mosaic law, though good and holy, cannot counteract the power of sin. 2:12–29; 3:9–20; 5:20; 7:1–25; 9:30–10:8
3. Through the righteousness of God, sin is judged and salvation is provided. 3:21–26; 5:12–19; 6:1–10; 7:1–6; 8:1–4
4. With the coming of Jesus Christ, the former age of redemptive history has passed away and the new age of redemptive history has begun. 1:1–7; 3:21–26; 5:1–8:39
5. The atoning death of Jesus Christ is central to God's plan of salvation. 3:21–26; 4:23–25; 5:6–11, 15–19; 6:1–10; 7:4–6; 8:1–4
6. Justification is by faith alone. 1:16–4:25; 9:30–10:21
7. There is a certain hope of future glory for those who are in Christ Jesus. 5:1–8:39
8. Those who have died with Christ and who enjoy the work of the Holy Spirit are enabled to live a new life. 2:25–29; 6:1–7:6; 8:1–39
9. God is sovereign in salvation; he works all things according to his plan. 9:1–11:36
10. God fulfills his saving promises to both Jews and Gentiles. 1:18–4:25; 9:1–11:36; 15:8–13
11. The grace of the gospel calls Christians to personal holiness, mutual service, good citizenship, and wholehearted neighbor-love in Christ. 12:1–13:14