John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are the textbook definition of "gaslighting".

Are you a Democrat?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

True, and I had been thinking along the same lines. Thx for all your inputs in the thread if you are bowing out.

I'm just not seeing any point in holding a discussion with someone I'll just end up mocking and taunting. You are incapable of proving your thesis on how Jesus was wrong concerning what He taught about soteriology.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

You haven't presented Biblical evidence. You produced conjecture and repeated those opinions over and over. In long lengthy boorish posts which only ended in "God is unfair" if we take the scriptures at their word.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Prove the misuse of the principles and then you're proving something.

We all did. We proved you wrong with verses you never dealt with. Don, you are blind, and you are self-serving. You've run your course in Pentecost, and now you are at a point in your life that you feel the need to switch it up. In your mind, the Gospel just has to be easier than the Apostolic Pentecostal always taught. Because otherwise God would be unfair to some right living head hunter in Papua New Guinea. Or some sweet old Baptist school mom, who baked red velvet cake for all her Sunday school students.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Instead, believe what the principles show.

Don, you have an interpretation which contradicts the MAIN PRINCIPLE of the NEW TESTAMENT. It isn't time for Esaias, Amanah, and myself to go back to the woodshed. It's you who are absolutely out of your ever loving religious mind. But, sadly you'll never change, religion has thoroughly smoothed your brain.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Whoa now, lets slow this puppy down some. You deny the Gospel, and Jesus with what you been trying to make us swallow. You and I don't have the same doctrine not by a long shot. I would never call God unfair, that's your slippery slope, all by your lonesome. In other words, you don't believe fat meat is greasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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?

There you go, you started the next sentence with BUT. You don't believe Jesus, you don't have a clue what Paul meant in Romans. So, you ended up with the baloney doctrine which teaches the Apostle Paul thought Hindus, Buddhists and Sioux Indians were saved. Saved without the blood of Jesus Christ. No, It is not my doctrine as much as yours. You and I have no fellowship.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Well...... Dom, I've actually got a different twist than the distorting you attempt to show of me in that statement.

Distorting??? Don, you have typed out literal pages telling us what you think Romans is saying. Esaias, Amanah, and myself have replied with book, chapter, and verse showing that you are wrong. I asked you to show anywhere Jesus Christ taught the same as you are proposing in this thread. You failed. That's why this discussion can no longer proceed. You have run out of anything new to present to us. How about this, show us in the Bible where Jesus taught there was another way into His Kingdom other than His atonement.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I don't think God is unfair, like you attempt to say of me.

Don, sounds like you actually hate God? You absolutely believe that you should be on the throne instead of Him? It all probably started when you first thought you could of done a better job than your pastor. Sitting in the pew thinking how you could of straightened everybody out if you got in that pulpit. Yep, first the pastor, then on to Jesus. Reinterpret the Bible and stand back and admire your work.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Here you are saying it Don. God is messed up, and He needs your interpretation of Romans to straighten out His mess. It's not God who is unfair Don. It is you who allowed yourself to be consumed by religion instead of the Holy Ghost. The letter of the Law kills, and kills a man deader than fried chicken. the Spirit of Truth guides into all Truth. No one can teach you, because you already have it. Jesus probably has been trying to reach you on the daily, but you never listened when you were young. You sure aren't going to start now.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

STOP

We are done here. What you posted above is just plain stupid.

Tell you what, you go and prove that Jesus taught that you can get to heaven any other way than His Gospel. Go ahead, show us where Jesus taught there was another way other than through faith in His atonement. It's an absolute drag, having to have us type out a rebuttal with scriptures. Only to have you come back repeating the same tired replies.

If you can't prove that Jesus taught as you claim Romans to be saying? Than figure out some other topic. Because you're done here.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Evang. Benincasa

I'm just not seeing any point in holding a discussion with someone I'll just end up mocking and taunting.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1615403]Here you seem to be distinguishing people entering the Kingdom (joining the church?) vs going to heaven. You previously stated several times that these Romans 2 gentiles never heard the Gospel, don't know Jesus is, are not born again, yet they will "go to heaven".

Yes, I see a difference but not as you portray me. Yes, I see there is a difference between those in heaven who are born again and those not born again, for there are many in heaven who are not born again; namely: a) the righteous from before the law; b) the many OT saints. Along with these are those 1) righteous who have never heard the gospel; 2) those who are baptized but haven't received the Spirit; 3) babies and children under the age of accountability.

All those on earth in the Kingdom, faithful to the end, will go to heaven at death or resurrection.

Others in heaven are the born again, who are in the Kingdom of God. To be born again Jesus said that a person needed to born of water and born of the Spirit (which is being baptized the one way that the Bible describes baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost). There is only one way to be born again and therefore only one way to enter the Kingdom: the way Jesus describes in Jn3, which is 'interpretted' for all by Peter in Ac2.38.

The way I hear you describing those gaining access to heaven is through the gospel: through faith in God, repentance, baptism, receiving the Spirit. The way I hear you describe it all others do not gain access to heaven. Therefore your interpretation of the Bible shows babies and the 'only baptized' going to hell. If this is not the correct understanding of how you see the gospel then plz provide clarification.

You may have commented on these already and I may have missed it, but I don't think you have replied about babies and the 'only baptized', so plz do. Do these gain access to heaven or do they go to hell, falling through the cracks of your theology into hell? They do not in mine, in what you might describe as perverted theology.

Watch for the answer here ladies and gentlemen. How will our esteemed commenter (I say without sarcasm) provide a direct answer or will he be evasive, citing my evasiveness to his questions as an excuse not to be direct? (Did you see what I did there? I gave him an easy out, giving him myself the reason for him not to answer.)

[donfriesen1]

Amanah, Dominic Benincasa & Esaias: their error. I'm lumping them together in this post, when this may not actually be so, doing it for convenience sake.

-- A,D & E don't allow that God does not judge those without law by the law. This results, in fact, of seeing that what they say means, "if you haven't heard the gospel, too bad, you'll fry" even if you make every effort to live right by the conscience when you don't have the Word. A,D & E will contend that this is salvation by good works.

-- A,D & E say that these gentiles in ro2.12-16 have the gospel. But any having the gospel also have the law and Paul says these have no law, so they can't have the gospel to write the law on their hearts the same as the Spirit does in those who are born again.

-- A,D & E says seeing these who 'show the work of the law in their heart by the conscience as judged fit for heaven' shows a system of getting saved by good works. And because the Bible shows Christians are not saved by good works, they say these then must be saved by the gospel. What A,D & E fail to show is that these responding to the conscience are responding to a God-given 'internal law' by the conscience. This responding is a kind of 'faith in the Word'. The good works that are anti-biblical are the works that are based on human efforts completely apart from what God has asked Man to do. God asks Man to do the following good works: faith (an action of the mind), repent, baptism, live right. All responding to God's commands for these good works do so by faith. These are good works but not good works apart from responding to God's ways, which those who respond to a God-given conscience also do.

-- A,D & E deny that Men similar to righteous Cornelius would go to heaven had they died never hearing the Gospel, that these go to hell though living right. This would make God appear to be unjust by d.mning righteous people, which he will never allow himself to be seen as.

-- A,D & E contend that right living people are only judged fit for heaven by the gospel alone and not by any other method. They would thus deny that babies gain heaven by other means than the Gospel though these aren't born again. They might deny (though not actually replying to that thought in a post) that the conscience is used at the Great White throne Judgment and imply that the only measurement standard God uses is the Gospel. If God uses the conscience to judge, does it not indicate that some will pass the 'entrance to heaven' test, when they haven't ever heard the Gospel or law to be judged by? God does not use the law/gospel to d.mn those who haven't heard the law/gospel, Ro 5.13.

-- A,D & E would deny that people's right living by the conscience in the Gospel Age, who had never heard the Word, would go to heaven when not born again, judged as d.mned. But would say that people in a similar situation (living right by the conscience alone and had no law, Ro5.13) in the Age of Conscience, like Enoch, would go to heaven. Thus A,D & E would show God as using uneven judgments of similar people.

-- A,D & E contend that those living before the 10 Commandments had to have had law, because some walked with God, contradicting Paul, who says they had no law.

-- A,D & E would contend that God has limited means and abilities to produce a change in the heart, that the only way is the Word when it is written in our heart by the Spirit in those who are born again. Does God not produce changes in our behaviour by sending calamities, by preaching, by impressing our minds with thoughts, by stern warnings from our parents. God is not so limited as A,D & E say.

-- A,D & E would, by rigid theology which says that only those who are born again gain entrance to heaven, then be saying all those baptized not yet having received the Spirit would be d.mned to hell, though their sins are remitted. Thus A,D & E rigid theology is shown to be in error.

A,D & E correctly defend the faith. I agree with them that salvation is by grace through faith in the blood of Jesus through obedience to the gospel in the new birth. Perhaps the contention in this thread is like the contention that some see between James and Paul. James has the appearance of showing a salvation by good works, while Paul has the appearnce of salvation by only faith. It is said of Luther, the Reformer, that he contended that the book of James should not be in the Bible for this reason. (I met one person so hyped-up on salvation by faith alone that he said a person didn't even need to repent, because it was a good work. Silly goose.) But if understood properly, James and Paul agree and complement one another. Both are right because its God's Word. The contentions in this thread are similar in a way. The two sides have the appearance of being opposed but are complementary. They appear to contradict but both are from the Word of God, and are complementary.

Hagar was covered by the covenant that Abraham had with God while she lived under his roof. When she was kicked out she left the covering but did she then have no relationship with God when without any covenant? Why then does she receive a blessing from the one she has no covenant relationship with? The principle shown may be that people can have God's blessings in a non-covenant relationships. Does the principle deny that these blessings could be eternal blessings in those who are judged as right-living without covenant (by the conscience?)? God gives the conscience for what reason? To direct the person to right living. Does God then d.mn those he has directed to live right when they fail to enter covenant not ever having heard of the possibility of a covenant? What kind of justice does it convey when some say, 'too bad - you fry because you didn't have a chance to hear the gospel. Oh well.' A just God doesn't fry when they live right the only way they know how - the God-given conscience. Any who say God fries these are bringing shame to God, making him cringe with embarassment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes, I see a difference but not as you portray me. Yes, I see there is a difference between those in heaven who are born again and those not born again, for there are many in heaven who are not born again; namely: a) the righteous from before the law; b) the many OT saints. Along with these are those 1) righteous who have never heard the gospel; 2) those who are baptized but haven't received the Spirit; 3) babies and children under the age of accountability.

All those on earth in the Kingdom, faithful to the end, will go to heaven at death or resurrection.

Others in heaven are the born again, who are in the Kingdom of God. To be born again Jesus said that a person needed to born of water and born of the Spirit (which is being baptized the one way that the Bible describes baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost). There is only one way to be born again and therefore only one way to enter the Kingdom: the way Jesus describes in Jn3, which is 'interpretted' for all by Peter in Ac2.38.

The way I hear you describing those gaining access to heaven is through the gospel: through faith in God, repentance, baptism, receiving the Spirit. The way I hear you describe it all others do not gain access to heaven. Therefore your interpretation of the Bible shows babies and the 'only baptized' going to hell. If this is not the correct understanding of how you see the gospel then plz provide clarification.

You may have commented on these already and I may have missed it, but I don't think you have replied about babies and the 'only baptized', so plz do. Do these gain access to heaven or do they go to hell, falling through the cracks of your theology into hell? They do not in mine, in what you might describe as perverted theology.

Watch for the answer here ladies and gentlemen. How will our esteemed commenter (I say without sarcasm) provide a direct answer or will he be evasive, citing my evasiveness to his questions as an excuse not to be direct? (Did you see what I did there? I gave him an easy out, giving him myself the reason for him not to answer.)

What then is the point to being born again? Why is faith in Jesus important, if all it takes to go to heaven is to listen to your conscience? What was the point of Jesus death and resurrection in the first place? Why send apostles out to spread the word?

If all it takes is to listen to one's conscience?

Also, a side note, I pointed out in the very beginning the whole idea of "going to heaven" is unbiblical to begin with, that is not the point of the Gospel, and nobody is "going to heaven" anyway.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Amanah, Dominic Benincasa & Esaias: their error. I'm lumping them together in this post, when this may not actually be so, doing it for convenience sake.

-- A,D & E don't allow that God does not judge those without law by the law. This results, in fact, of seeing that what they say means, "if you haven't heard the gospel, too bad, you'll fry" even if you make every effort to live right by the conscience when you don't have the Word. A,D & E will contend that this is salvation by good works.

John 3:18-21 KJV
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

-- A,D & E say that these gentiles in ro2.12-16 have the gospel. But any having the gospel also have the law and Paul says these have no law, so they can't have the gospel to write the law on their hearts the same as the Spirit does in those who are born again.

Having the Gospel does not mean having the law nor does it imply it. This is where you do err. You assume "having the Gospel requires having the law" but Romans chapter 2 makes it clear that "having the law" means being a Jew and "not having the law" means being a Gentile.

-- A,D & E says seeing these who 'show the work of the law in their heart by the conscience as judged fit for heaven' shows a system of getting saved by good works. And because the Bible shows Christians are not saved by good works, they say these then must be saved by the gospel. What A,D & E fail to show is that these responding to the conscience are responding to a God-given 'internal law' by the conscience.

I have already showed that according to the Bible, the effect of the New Covenant is that God writes His law in the heart of the believer. Romans chapter 2 therefore shows that those who have the law written in their heart must be in the New Covenant. You assume, but have never proven, that the law of God is written in the heart "by the conscience". The Bible says that GOD writes the law in the heart, as an effect of the New Covenant.

-- A,D & E deny that Men similar to righteous Cornelius would go to heaven had they died never hearing the Gospel, that these go to hell though living right. This would make God appear to be unjust by d.mning righteous people, which he will never allow himself to be seen as.

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 and his household WERE NOT SAVED UNTIL AFTER THEY HEARD THE WORDS WHEREBY THEY WOULD BE SAVED. They were not saved by right-living according their conscience, they were saved by Peter's preaching to them.

-- A,D & E contend that right living people are only judged fit for heaven by the gospel alone and not by any other method. They would thus deny that babies gain heaven by other means than the Gospel though these aren't born again. They might deny (though not actually replying to that thought in a post) that the conscience is used at the Great White throne Judgment and imply that the only measurement standard God uses is the Gospel. If God uses the conscience to judge, does it not indicate that some will pass the 'entrance to heaven' test, when they haven't ever heard the Gospel or law to be judged by? God does not use the law/gospel to d.mn those who haven't heard the law/gospel, Ro 5.13.

Revelation 20:12-15 KJV
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

-- A,D & E would deny that people's right living by the conscience in the Gospel Age, who had never heard the Word, would go to heaven when not born again, judged as d.mned. But would say that people in a similar situation (living right by the conscience alone and had no law, Ro5.13) in the Age of Conscience, like Enoch, would go to heaven. Thus A,D & E would show God as using uneven judgments of similar people.

Your point about pre-Sinaitic Patriarchs has already been answered and refuted, they were in covenant relationship with God, they were prophets, they were God's people, worshippers of the true God.

-- A,D & E contend that those living before the 10 Commandments had to have had law, because some walked with God, contradicting Paul, who says they had no law.

Total misrepresentation of what was said to you. See above.

-- A,D & E would contend that God has limited means and abilities to produce a change in the heart, that the only way is the Word when it is written in our heart by the Spirit in those who are born again. Does God not produce changes in our behaviour by sending calamities, by preaching, by impressing our minds with thoughts, by stern warnings from our parents. God is not so limited as A,D & E say.

God is limited by His Word, He will not do what He has said He will not do (justify anyone by their works or personal individual righteousness and give them eternal life). God being omnipotent does not mean He is required to do what YOU want Him to do.

-- A,D & E would, by rigid theology which says that only those who are born again gain entrance to heaven, then be saying all those baptized not yet having received the Spirit would be d.mned to hell, though their sins are remitted. Thus A,D & E rigid theology is shown to be in error.

I already addressed your issue of those who have been baptised but have not yet received the Spirit, that was the original stated purpose of the thread. Once again you are twisting things to avoid the truth that has been presented to you.

A,D & E correctly defend the faith.

Then it behooves you to accept the faith and agree with us.

Hagar was covered by the covenant that Abraham had with God while she lived under his roof. When she was kicked out she left the covering but did she then have no relationship with God when without any covenant? Why then does she receive a blessing from the one she has no covenant relationship with? The principle shown may be that people can have God's blessings in a non-covenant relationships.

Ishmael wasn't counted as the seed of Abraham. The blessings given to him and his mother were temporal. God blesses the just and the unjust, all good things come from God regardless of to whom they come. Your doctrine is a jumbled mess, and I don't mean that sarcastically or just to be insulting. It truly is a jumbled mess, a patchwork of your personal ideas and what-ifs that repeatedly contradict the Scriptures. We can only preach as authoritative that which is written in the Word:

1 Peter 4:11 KJV
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Isaiah 8:20 KJV
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What then is the point to being born again? Good question. We also could ask 'what is the point of creating Man', but lets not go there. The Lord's highest objective in providing the gospel is to provide the new birth because that puts these in the Kingdom of God, perhaps with highest rank and privileges compared to those who do not enter, like those of the OT and Conscience Age, Lk7.28. There are some who never hear the gospel, and are these who attempt to live right without the gospel abandoned to hell? No, not according to Paul. The Lord also wants to give them the best he can in the circumstance they are in. (Perhaps something similar happened with the angels in their lifetime, resulting in their eternal positions of different rank: Seraphim, Cherubim, messenger angel, fighting angel.) When this isn't achieved by hearing the gospel he settles for less. In my opinion these who fail to enter the Kingdom are in a lesser position and receive lesser rewards in heaven but with eternal life. God's love and justice compels him to reach as many as possible, giving them eternal life in heaven, not d.mning to hell those who live as best as they know how when not having heard the gospel, by the conscience.Why is faith in Jesus important, if all it takes to go to heaven is to listen to your conscience? Its of highest importance in those who have heard but not in consideration in these in Ro2 when they haven't heard about it. Amanah, Dom, and yourself repeatedly reference the scriptures which rightly apply only to those who have heard. Ro 2 refers to those who do not have the law, -- they haven't got a clue about the gospel or the 10 Commandments. God does not judge by the Word those who have never herd the Word, Ro5.13. What was the point of Jesus death and resurrection in the first place? Why send apostles out to spread the word?

If all it takes is to listen to one's conscience? And why does God instill the conscience if he provides the gospel? Why bother?

Also, a side note, I pointed out in the very beginning the whole idea of "going to heaven" is unbiblical to begin with, that is not the point of the Gospel, and nobody is "going to heaven" anyway.

God from the Beginning has instilled the conscience. It is a guide, an internal law for Man. it was used as measurement method in the Age of Conscience when there was no law, used to determine the necessity of the Flood, used to determine the righteousness of those like Enoch. The conscience is alive and active in all humans and will be used at the Eternal Judgment. Whether it will be used in determining rewards or whether used for determining entrance to heaven or not, is not detailed. But Ro2.12-16, where they are portrayed as justified, seems to indicate that it is used for admittance to heaven. The just God will do right by those who live right by the conscience.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God from the Beginning has instilled the conscience. It is a guide, an internal law for Man. it was used as measurement method in the Age of Conscience when there was no law, used to determine the necessity of the Flood, used to determine the righteousness of those like Enoch. The conscience is alive and active in all humans and will be used at the Eternal Judgment. Whether it will be used in determining rewards or whether used for determining entrance to heaven or not, is not detailed. But Ro2.12-16, where they are portrayed as justified, seems to indicate that it is used for admittance to heaven. The just God will do right by those who live right by the conscience.

The post proves you are a dispensationalist

"The Age of Conscience" is a dispensationalist teaching because it refers to a specific period of time in biblical history where God deals with humanity in a particular way. Dispensationalism is a theological system that emphasizes the different ways God relates to humanity throughout history.

In this context, "The Age of Conscience" typically refers to the period from Adam to Noah (Genesis 3-8), characterized by:

1. God's initial revelation to humanity (Genesis 3:15)
2. Human conscience as the primary means of knowing right and wrong
3. Individual responsibility and accountability

Here are the 7 ages or dispensations in dispensationalism:

1. The Age of Innocence (Genesis 1-3): From creation to the Fall, a time of perfect harmony between God and humanity.
2. The Age of Conscience (Genesis 4-8): From the Fall to Noah's Flood, a period where God dealt with humanity through their conscience.
3. The Age of Government (Genesis 9-11): From Noah's Flood to Babel, a time when God established human government and ordained capital punishment.
4. The Age of Promise (Genesis 12 -Exodus): From Abraham to Moses, a period when God made promises to Israel and established the Abrahamic covenant.
5. The Age of Law (Exodus-Matthew): From Moses to Jesus Christ, a time when God gave the Mosaic Law to Israel and emphasized obedience.
6. The Age of Grace (Matthew-Revelation): From the birth of Jesus Christ to the Rapture, a period when God offers salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
7. The Age of Kingdom (Revelation 20): A future millennium when Jesus Christ will reign on earth, and Satan will be bound.

Dispensationalism is contrary to a correct understanding of covenantal relationships, and an incorrect understanding of the old and new covenants

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

John 3:18-21 KJV
He that believeth Agreed, but believing implies hearing, which those in Ro2 haven't heard when not having the law. But by what you say, you imply that they have heard and believed. Stop and agree with Paul that these have not heard. on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. [21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Having the Gospel does not mean having the law nor does it imply it. Of course having the gospel implies also having the law. Who will agree with you on your stance? Knowing that most of the gospel writers quote the law should have been enough to prevent your stating this.This is where you do err. You assume "having the Gospel requires having the law" but Romans chapter 2 makes it clear that "having the law" means being a Jew and "not having the law" means being a Gentile.



I have already showed that according to the Bible, the effect of the New Covenant is that God writes His law in the heart of the believer. Of course this is true but doesn't prevent the fact that God can impact the heart and actions by other means. Romans chapter 2 therefore shows that those who have the law written in their heart must be in the New Covenant. You assume, but have never proven, that the law of God is written in the heart "by the conscience". Paul says that 'nature' produces the effect of the writing of the law on the heart. The context of the passage show the 'nature' to be the conscience. Paul could have used other words here instead of nature, like gospel, but purposely used 'nature' because that's what he meant. The Bible says that GOD writes the law in the heart, as an effect of the New Covenant. TRUE but not showing everything the Bible says. It is only one truth of many.

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 and his household WERE NOT SAVED UNTIL AFTER THEY HEARD THE WORDS WHEREBY THEY WOULD BE SAVED. Of course I agree that God wanted them to receive full NT salvation -- saved -- but this doesn't prevent the possiblity that, had they died before hearing the Gospel, that they would not have gone to heaven when described as righteous. Any doing not doing so would describe God as an unjust God. Stop doing so. They were not saved by right-living according their conscience, they were saved by Peter's preaching to them.

Revelation 20:12-15 KJV
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. [15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And your quoting this is good but is showing only a part of the picture because the Bible shows God using the conscience also, to judge the secrets of the heart. What I contend for is showing the fuller picture. God uses the Books and the conscience, which perhaps is recorded along with life's deeds in the Books.





Your point about pre-Sinaitic Patriarchs has already been answered and refuted, But your contention that these of the Age of Conscience had the Word was based on assumption (poor evidence, not allowed as solid proof) that they had the Word , contradicting Paul who says they have no law, Ro5.13. Come on over to this side where you don't need to contradict Paul. they were in covenant relationship with God, they were prophets, they were God's people, worshippers of the true God.



Total misrepresentation of what was said to you. See above.



God is limited by His Word, He will not do what He has said He will not do (justify anyone by their works or personal individual righteousness and give them eternal life). This seems to ignore the fact that it was God himself who instills the Conscience. And for what reason? It is a guide, his motivater to right living which aligns with the purpose of God in giving the Word. Why anyone would attempt to deny God's obvious intentions in placing the conscience, or deny its place in determing right living is a mystery. The conscience does not contradict the Word but works along side it to accomplish the will of God in Man -- right living. God being omnipotent does not mean He is required to do what YOU want Him to do.



I already addressed your issue of those who have been baptised but have not yet received the Spirit, that was the original stated purpose of the thread. Plz, Esaias, please reference the post number if not too much trouble. Once again you are twisting things to avoid the truth that has been presented to you. It is not my intention to twist what you say. Please accept my apology if I have done so and provide detailed references so I could provide my corrections.



Then it behooves you to accept the faith and agree with us. I have already stated previously that you have correctly stated NT salvation is by grace through faith and obedience to the gospel by the new birth and that I agree with it necessity in those who've heard. I ask that you expand your theology to include what the Word says about those who have not heard the Word deemed righteous by the conscience if they've heeded it's God-given guidance. What I believe does not contradict but complement NT salvation theology.




Ishmael wasn't counted as the seed of Abraham. The blessings given to him and his mother were temporal. TRUE, but as I asked in the post -- does it prevent the possibility of eternal blessing? God blesses the just and the unjust, all good things come from God regardless of to whom they come. Your doctrine is a jumbled mess, and I don't mean that sarcastically or just to be insulting. It truly is a jumbled mess, a patchwork of your personal ideas and what-ifs that repeatedly contradict the Scriptures. NOT SO, as readers have plainly seen. I've showed all along how I've based my thoughts on the scripture and the principles displayed in scripture. We can only preach as authoritative that which is written in the Word:

1 Peter 4:11 KJV
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Isaiah 8:20 KJV
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Has Esaias replied to the babies comments? It contradicts his contentions that 'God only uses the new birth to determine access to heaven'. It shows God using another method to provide humans access to heaven. It opens possibilities that there are other methods to provide access to heaven, showing that the conscience may be one of these methods. (In the interest of transparency, I'll load his gun so he can shoot me down. As a truth-seeker I'd prefer the truth every time, even if it would contradict my own contentions, causing me to change them. Which verse shows babies in heaven? I can't quote any right now and it may be that this isn't a scripturally-based thought, coming instead out of logical reasoning. Is this reason enough to reject it, making any other conclusions based on it erroneous?).