John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

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. And that is where I'll comment.

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by 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.

What you said provokes thought. Thank You for it..

This is unlike others on this thread who, having nothing scriptural to say, waste ink and everyones time with character disparagings instead, contributing nothing when they have the abilities to do so.

That aside, what you've said about enoch/covenant is speculation/assumption. Though coming from a good source, good reasoning, doctrine needs strong supports or it ends up being opinion, no matter how reasonable it sounds. In this case, saying Enoch had covenant, which would imply Word, contradicts Paul who says it was a time without law, Ro5.13, no law. How do you get by contradicting God? I'd like to hear your response to Ro5.13.

[Evang.Benincasa]

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.

Don, as I mentioned before. Religion has smoothed your brain. I asked you a question concerning soteriology, not ecclesiology. Therefore my question concerning Paul and Jesus is focused solely on soteriology. I do believe I made that quite clear in my posts. I also stated in my Parthian shot to you, my last post. Is that you needed to put up or shut up. Jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom is fixated on His salvation to Israel. Paul understood the importance and therefore made no bones about how one needed to be saved only through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Again it seems to me that in this stage of your life, hasn't caused you to grow closer to Christ. But caused you to become more religious. Instead of being renewed in the Holy Ghost, and being led by the Holy Ghost. You become spiritually dead, and dryer than a mummy's pocket. Instead of seeing Jesus as righteous. You view His Gospel as falling short, and therefore needing your assistance in restoring it to be inclusive. A well known religious individual by the name of Carlton Pearson also had an issue with book, chapter, and verse. He felt that Jesus wasn't "loving" enough. Yet, he isn't the only one to take this view of God. Many throughout history have viewed Jesus Christ as being too exclusive. They see Him as you do as unfair to not allow "right living" Pygmies into Heaven.

Don, as I said in my previous post to you. You need to show us Jesus preaching this doctrine of Inclusion. Again, my question is about soteriology and not ecclesiology. Since I have not got that straight to your polished brain. Let me say it again.

Can you please explain how Jesus preach inclusion?

I highly doubt you will. Because your previous reply to my request was met with the cop out concerning ecclesiology. Therefore your weak attempt to skirt my main question, shows you believe Jesus didn't preach a gospel of inclusion.

Don, as I stated many times before, this discussion presents nothing new from your side. You haven't refreshed your arguments. You haven't taken the time to do some heavy lifting to strengthen your arguments. in short, you lost any debate on this subject. Wanting to continue with me on this subject will only cause me to mock you.

I'll leave with you with this; Proverbs 18:6.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Fourth, I notice there is a general tendency in the author's writings to downplay baptism. Referring to it repeatedly as a "ceremonial act", and attempting to contrast the little-ness of the "ceremonial act" with the grand importance and magnitude of "right living" tells me the author does not have a proper Biblical understanding of Christian baptism. Or at least is attempting to relegate baptism to a mere "religious ceremony" in order to increase the perceived relative importance of "right living". Hearing the Gospel, and responding to the Gospel in faith, seems to be viewed as "religious ceremony" of relatively little importance. Of course the author doesn't come right out and say "these things are unimportant", but apparently they aren't as important as "right living" and certainly failing to participate in these "religious ceremonies" is no bar to heaven. All of which shows an attitude that denigrates baptism, and faith in Christ, at the expense of generally "upright behaviour".

I had asked Esaias to provide the post number where he addresses 'the person who is baptized but not Spirit filled (therefore not born again the way Jesus described it). He said he has already addressed it. I thought he hadn't and did a thread search using 'baptism' as the key search phrase. I conclude, but ask forEsaias
to prove me wrong, that he has not responded in this thread to my point, because it exposes his rigid theology as not being the right theology.

By rigid theology I mean the theology which supposes that the only measure method that God uses to provide entrance to heaven is the new birth. If this is true, then the 'only baptized' will go to hell by Esaias's rigid theology, though they have remission of sin.

For the record, contrary to how Esaias would paint me, my theology exults Jesus name baptism as the only scripturally valid baptism. See, its bolded, underlined, which makes it my official statement, not ever needing to be questioned again. But that is not likely to stop future disparagings of my character, nor prevent distortions of my points to discredit them/me, because that's what they do, when they have an agenda.

Right reasoning would say that common sense should be used when approaching the scriptures, that it shouldn't be abandoned. The rigid theology the Pharisee had resulted in magnifying details, which distorted the intend of God in it. The Sabbath rules were magnified to such an extend that Jesus was classified a sinner for healing on the sabbath!!! Common sense tells us that a just God uses love and grace along with the 'rules' of NT theology shown in many verses. He stands by what he says but when rigid rules of interpretation are used with a magnifying glass it forgets that God isn't a God who is looking for ways to keep people out of heaven. Rather, the love which brought the Cross is looking for ways to keep the ones he loves out of hell. He is merciful but not acquitting the guilty. What Paul shows in Ro2.12-16 shows the conscience being used to provide entrance to heaven for those who live right by it, and it shows a theology contrary to rigid theology, aligning with the common sense view that shows God as a just God. Rigid theolgy does not show God as just.

Rather than agreeing to this common sense theology, my detracters will characterize me as believing in a salvation by good works, wanting to water down the gospel, wanting to allow willful sinners into heaven.. But my aims are to bring to the front that which rigid theology pushes to the back to be hidden: God is a just God who doesn't d.mn the right living person who does the best they can when they don't know any better, not having heard. Characterizing God as such portrays Jesus as a mean, unjust God, when he isn't. It should be stopped. ESAIAS, Dom and Amanah should stop this.

Rigid theology says righteous living Cornelius would have gone to hell had he died the day he met Peter. Rigid theology says people who haven't heard are d.mned as if they have heard. Rigid theology says people baptized but not Spirit filled go to hell though forgiven. Common sense theology says otherwise. Park the rigid part in your salvation theology.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I had asked Esaias to provide the post number where he addresses 'the person who is baptized but not Spirit filled (therefore not born again the way Jesus described it). He said he has already addressed it. I thought he hadn't and did a thread search using 'baptism' as the key search phrase. I conclude, but ask for Esaias
to prove me wrong, that he has not responded in this thread to my point, because it exposes his rigid theology as not being the right theology.

By rigid theology I mean the theology which supposes that the only measure method that God uses to provide entrance to heaven is the new birth. If this is true, then the 'only baptized' will go to hell by Esaias’ rigid theology, though they have remission of sin.

For the record, contrary to how Esaias would paint me, my theology exults Jesus name baptism as the only scripturally valid baptism. See, its bolded, underlined, which makes it my official statement, not ever needing to be questioned again. But that is not likely to stop future disparagings of my character, nor prevent distortions of my points to discredit them/me, because that's what they do, when they have an agenda.

Right reasoning would say that common sense should be used when approaching the scriptures, that it shouldn't be abandoned. The rigid theology the Pharisee had resulted in magnifying details, which distorted the intend of God in it. The Sabbath rules were magnified to such an extend that Jesus was classified a sinner for healing on the sabbath!!! Common sense tells us that a just God uses love and grace along with the 'rules' of NT theology shown in many verses. He stands by what he says but when rigid rules of interpretation are used with a magnifying glass it forgets that God isn't a God who is looking for ways to keep people out of heaven. Rather, the love which brought the Cross is looking for ways to keep the ones he loves out of hell. He is merciful but not acquitting the guilty. What Paul shows in Ro2.12-16 shows the conscience being used to provide entrance to heaven for those who live right by it, and it shows a theology contrary to rigid theology, aligning with the common sense view that shows God as a just God. Rigid theolgy does not show God as just.

Rather than agreeing to this common sense theology, my detracters will characterize me as believing in a salvation by good works, wanting to water down the gospel, wanting to allow willful sinners into heaven.. But my aims are to bring to the front that which rigid theology pushes to the back to be hidden: God is a just God who doesn't ........ the right living person who does the best they can when they don't know any better, not having heard. Characterizing God as such portrays Jesus as a mean, unjust God, when he isn't. It should be stopped. ESAIAS, Dom, and Amanah should stop this.

Rigid theology says righteous living Cornelius would have gone to hell had he died the day he met Peter. Rigid theology says people who haven't heard are d.mned as if they have heard. Rigid theology says people baptized but not Spirit filled go to hell though forgiven. Common sense theology says otherwise. Park the rigid part in your salvation theology

Don, do you understand when standing in a hole, you need to stop digging?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, do you understand when standing in a hole, you need to stop digging?

They can't help themselves, like it's a compulsion of some kind. Almost like they have an agenda or something.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

They can't help themselves, like it's a compulsion of some kind. Almost like they have an agenda or something.

Actually, their agenda is reformation of Apostolic Pentecostalism. As most of the disgruntled we have faced off with over the years. Don, sees you, Amanah and myself as rigid unyielding ecclesiastical Neanderthals. Troglodytes in ceremonial adherence to an ancient text and an tyrannical deity. Don, and those like him are on a mission to turn us from what he calls "Rigid Theology."

Don, over the years sat in Apostolic Pentecostalism and dried up like an old prune. He viewed Jesus as Nurse Ratched. Instead of the Father who gathers His chickens under His wings. Tongues, Jesus name baptism, the entire doctrine of the Gospel just too much of a roadblock. Instead of believing in a supernatural Jesus who will send a vision to a devout Italian Centurion. Don, can only accept that there must be another way. Like when he and his fellow disgruntles say "what if" Cornelius would've died before Peter was sent to Cornelius' home?" But the fact is Cornelius didn't die. That's the point. He didn't die. God sent Him a vision, because he was devout, his prayers came up before God. What if a bullfrog had wings? He wouldn't bump his tail end every time he hopped? What moronic banter, and a total waste. The bull frog doesn't have wings, and will never fly. It all comes down to a whole lot of stupid talk. These people are found in every single denomination, every single different religion. Because they viewed their particular experience through the lens of carnality. Never allowing the Spirit of Truth to guide into all truth. They think we teach the commandments of men, but in reality, they do.

Anyway, there are none so blind who will not see.

Don, just wants an echo and not a voice.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ro5.13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world.

Actually, Paul did NOT say "there is no law". Yes he did. Read it. 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!

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. Well, well, well. That is pretty much what I have been saying, now isn't it, but using different words. Esaias calls it God's moral law and says this wasn't the Sinai law. I, instead of calling it 'God's moral law, I give it another label, 'Conscience'. But you Esaias keep saying we don't agree and clearly here it is, we agree. But watch this ladies and gentlemen, Esaias will reply to this post and will say that we don't agree on anything. Otherwise there would have been no righteous basis for God punishing anybody at anytime prior to Sinai And so, although he won't admit to it, Esaias is saying that God sent the Flood to judge humanity because it was their conscience that condemned them (his word is God's moral law, which hadn't been written nor spoken because we have no record of it, testified to by Paul who says this Ro5.13 by saying no law). Would it not be possible, if the conscience condemns someone, that the same conscience can clear someone? Of course. But you won't hear Esaias admitting to this, because his rigid theology says that only the gospel can condemn or clear someone. And the sin that brought the Flood was the violation of what the conscience told them was wrong, the sin against conscience brought spiritual death to all in Adam. .

.

[donfriesen1]

Paul talks about sin not imputed, Ro5.13. And what good reason is it that sin is not imputed to those who do sin? Paul says it is because they have no law. God does not judge those who have no law as if they did. Can it not also then be said, if we use the same principle, that any never hearing the Gospel do not get judged as if they did? And if someone lives right, only by the conscience because they have never heard of the law or the gospel, that the measure used to judge them either just or d.mned, will be that which God places in every Man when he makes Man in his image, the 'internal moral law of God', called the conscience? This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16.

[Amanah]

Romans says that all have sinned, all are guilty, all need to be made right with God by faith in the Messiah.

No one is made right by their own works of righteousness.

It is impossible to live right enough to stand before the Creator and Judge of the universe and sing "I did it my way," and be justified.