John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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

I really don't know if I agree or disagree with this because I really don't know. But I am willing to hear what you say and encourage you to say more if you'd like. I'm not getting the connection how being a dispensationalist is contrary to covenantalism. Say on, plz.

Also plz show how this applies to the discussion on this thread, if you would plz. Or does it relate more correctly to another thread?

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.How does this verse fit into your views?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

......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.

OK, I'll show how Jesus teaches this when you show how Jesus teaches the Apostles about hair, like Paul does in 1Co11. Paul comes to his conclusions in Ro the same way he comes to his conclusions in 1Co11: by reading the Word and meditating on it, allowing his reasoning abilitites, his brilliant mind, to lead to these conclusions. Do we have a deal? I know you will not be able to do this. But my point is this: Jesus laid the foundation principles of the Church Age, giving it to the Apostles to build on but he doesn't address every detail. Your request for this proof therefore is a false request.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I really don't know if I agree or disagree with this because I really don't know. But I am willing to hear what you say and encourage you to say more if you'd like. I'm not getting the connection how being a dispensationalist is contrary to covenantalism. Say on, plz.

Also plz show how this applies to the discussion on this thread, if you would plz. Or does it relate more correctly to another thread?

Hebrews 8:13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.How does this verse fit into your views?

I'm thinking that when you view scripture through lens of dispensational teaching you lose track of the fact that people were always saved by grace through faith. And losing track of that gives you the idea that it's possible to be saved by works. Just my thoughts on it

As to the scripture you quoted. The real difference between the old and new covenants is the old sacrificial system used animal sacrifices which could not actually remit sins. The new covenant is the same as the old covenant but now we have the blood of Jesus which does remit sins.

And you are right this ties into the other thread about scripture interpretation.

[coksiw]

Nobody was saved until Jesus came. Not even the saints before the cross.
If it werent for the cross, all the OT saints would have been judged into everlasting condemnation.

Again, non of them were saved until the cross happened. So the discussion about how they “were” saved is rather about, how God determined they will be benefiting from the future work of the cross. It has always been through faith and obedience through a covenant. I’m sure even Enoch was in a covenant with God, and he walked in it.

[Amanah]

Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on different ages or dispensations, can potentially lead to a works-based salvation approach. By dividing history into distinct periods with varying requirements for salvation, dispensationalism may inadvertently suggest that salvation is achieved through different means in different ages. For example, some dispensationalists teach that Old Testament saints were saved by works or obedience to the Law, while New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith.

In contrast, Covenant Theology emphasizes the unity of God's redemptive plan across all ages, highlighting the consistent theme of salvation by grace through faith. Covenant Theology recognizes that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the promised Messiah, just as New Testament believers are saved by faith in the accomplished work of Christ. This approach underscores the continuity of God's grace and the singular means of salvation: faith in Jesus Christ.

While dispensationalism doesn't necessarily intend to promote works-based salvation, its emphasis on different ages and requirements can lead to a fragmented understanding of salvation. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, presents a more cohesive and grace-centered narrative, aligning with the biblical emphasis on salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

OK, I'll show how Jesus teaches this when you show how Jesus teaches the Apostles about hair, like Paul does in 1Co11. Paul comes to his conclusions in Ro the same way he comes to his conclusions in 1Co11: by reading the Word and meditating on it, allowing his reasoning abilitites, his brilliant mind, to lead to these conclusions. Do we have a deal? I know you will not be able to do this. But my point is this: Jesus laid the foundation principles of the Church Age, giving it to the Apostles to build on but he doesn't address every detail. Your request for this proof therefore is a false request.

Where do these guys come from? It's like debating commercial law with a fine arts major.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

OK, I'll show how Jesus teaches this when you show how Jesus teaches the Apostles about hair, like Paul does in 1Co11. Paul comes to his conclusions in Ro the same way he comes to his conclusions in 1Co11: by reading the Word and meditating on it, allowing his reasoning abilitites, his brilliant mind, to lead to these conclusions. Do we have a deal? I know you will not be able to do this. But my point is this: Jesus laid the foundation principles of the Church Age, giving it to the Apostles to build on but he doesn't address every detail. Your request for this proof therefore is a false request.

Scripture is not written by human wisdom and personal interpretation, which Paul explicitly warns against in 1 Corinthians 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 3:19. Paul states that human wisdom is foolishness in God's sight and that we should not rely on our own understanding.

Paul's teachings, including those in Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, are not the result of his own brilliant mind or reasoning abilities. Rather, they are the result of the inspiration of the Spirit, as he himself claims in 1 Corinthians 2:13 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Scripture is not written by human wisdom and personal interpretation, which Paul explicitly warns against in 1 Corinthians 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 3:19. Paul states that human wisdom is foolishness in God's sight and that we should not rely on our own understanding.

Paul's teachings, including those in Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 11, are not the result of his own brilliant mind or reasoning abilities. Rather, they are the result of the inspiration of the Spirit, as he himself claims in 1 Corinthians 2:13 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No, you do, you are my favorite teacher!

[Esaias]

"-- 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."

Also, just want to remind everyone, the entire source of the error displayed on this thread is found right here, in the presupposition that the point is to get to heaven and escape hell. This presupposition also includes the assumption that escaping hell and gaining heaven is a matter of LAW and JUSTICE and not a matter of GRACE and PARDON. These two errors have combined to create the doctrinal confusion we see here.

What we see is the reasonings of an individual who has a particular religion, and that religion is NOT the religion of the Bible. What I mean is, the individual here has a religion in which the goal is to go to heaven, and where sin is a sort of disease and where God has some kind of obligation to get folks into heaven. From that religious foundation springs all the religious reasonings we see in this thread from this individual.

But the Bible isn't about going to heaven. It doesn't present mankind as poor victims of a disease that is keeping them away from the Happy Elysian Fields of the Afterlife Estates. (Come to think of it, the theology presented in this thread seems to be a variation of modern "woke-ism" and "social justice" theory...) Rather, the Bible is about God and His people, it's about His Covenant, and the eternal life (resurrection) that He promises them. It is about God's people being wayward and rebellious and criminals, and how He in spite of their criminality chooses to make a way to redeem them. It is about the fact that GOD IS LIFE and apart from God one cannot possibly have life, therefore only those in Covenant with God can possibly have eternal life. It isn't like pagan religions which teach that the afterlife depends on one's good behaviour, like a earning a ticket to the show. Most if not all pagan religion is legalistic in one way or another. And all pagan religion is contrary to the TRUTH revealed by God to His people through His Word.