John3 and Romans2: Part2 - Page 38

donfriesen1 · #**371** 08-11-2024, 07:01 AM

Post 156 Dom Benincasa says Don, you are wrong, and Esaias is right. But you know that already. The Bible is the Word of truth. I base what I believe and say, on the principles of the Word. If that makes me wrong in your eyes, then so be it.

Post 160 I'll take that as a complement. Thx, Dom.

Post 166 Dom says If Cornelius had a vision. How did he get the vision? In Acts 8:26-40 the Ethiopian eunuch reads Isaiah 53:7–8. How did Phillip know how to find the eunuch? What are you getting at here Dom?

Post 167 Dom asks Don, before the first European settlers landed in the Americas were the Indian tribes saved? I mean if they were “right living?” Would they have gone to Heaven? Aren't all righteous living people going to heaven? Why would you ask this if you believe it to be true?

Post 171 Dom says Anyway, show me the verse which says “church age?” Show me the verse which says rapture and I'll show you church age.

Post 172 Amanah says Don, your position is that: ... 2. God has an alternate plan for those who never hear the Word, which is the conscience. More correctly, the alternate plan was the Word, given (after Eden was closed) 2500 years later. For 2500 yrs the Lord expected Man to live without the Word, by the conscience and Man's intellectual discernment of right and wrong. (I believe without proof for it, that all Man's abilties were stronger nearer creation. To support this thought's validity: today we have laws against incest because the deformed babies demand it, while the first bro and sis married each other without bad consequences.) The conscience method failed, leading God to implement the Law method, which also failed. Then came the new birth method with the Word-internalised by the Spirit.

In summary, while the conscience plays a role in guiding human behavior, it is not a substitute for the Word of God or a means of achieving righteousness. God's perfect choice of the conscience for that time failed, as did the third perfect choice, Law, the Garden way being the first that failed. Nonetheless the conscience is God's guide and for those who don't have the Word it is the only God-provided method they have. The Gospel is the only way of salvation, and those who never hear the Word are still accountable to God's justice. Yes, true but by your view's positions you are saying, that only those who are born again enter heaven. I've shown by the Word that this isn't true. Also, along with that is the fact that babies enter heaven while not born again, proving that the new birth is not the only means of entering heaven. What of those who have had their sins forgiven/remitted and haven't received the Spirit. Your view sends forgiven people to hell, making God look like a monster. God wants all on earth born again but failing to do so when not hearing the gospel. Those who live right by the God-given guidance given for those without the Word, the conscience, these will enter heaven but not as part of the Church.

Post 175. Dom asks Don, which law is written on a man’s heart according to the Apostle? Good question. What would you, Dom, answer? If it is the Ten Commandments then which god is he or she not supposed to take in vain? Allah? Zeus? Beelzebub? Shiva? Krishna? Thor? Hulk?According to you, when these “right living” led by their conscience individuals stand before the Bema Seat, they are going to look up at Jesus, and say “who are you?!?!” If the true God resurrects these, does he resurrect them to stand before Allah? Zeus? Beelzebub? Shiva? Krishna? Thor? Hulk? Don't you see your question is just silly? You are capable of much better.

Post 176. Esaias quotes 'Originally Posted by donfriesen1. View Post. A just and a caring God doesn't leave any of them dangling without any hope but makes provision for them throught the conscience.' Don doesn't see it, but this is the essence of legalism. That God OWES people heaven. That God OWES people "a chance to be saved". This is what I see: God loves people and though he doesn't OWE anyone anything, still he hopes all of humanity were with him in heaven, all. But many d.mn themselves because they love sin more than truth. Some, who don't have the Word, listen to their God-given conscience and live right. That they follow a God-given method shows them following God in a sense, having faith in a sense. Had these same people had the Word they would follow the Word, but they don't have it.

God offers salvation through the Gospel, True. but that isn't good enough for the legalist also true. What of those who never heard the Gospel, they ask? It would be UNFAIR and UNRIGHTEOUS for God to judge such person without giving them a chance at salvation, also. And Esaias condemns all who haven't heard the Word as if they had heard it. Thus Esaias shows himself and his God to be heartless, whose only judgment method of these who haven't had a chance to hear of the new birth, is d.mnation.

If Esaias's defn of legalism/conscience is the right understanding of legalism/conscience then all those who follow any God-given methods are also under legalism. But Ro5.13 shows that God doesn't judge those who don't have the Word as if they did. What Esaias would do, he would say that God would d.mn all who haven't been born again, even those who never got a chance to hear about the new birth. They would fry. Don't believe in Esaias's God or Esaias's way. Esaias's God would not show mercy, Ro9.14-16. Trust Jesus for Ac2.38 salvation but also allow that right-living people who have never heard the gospel will go to heaven too, when their conscience doesn't condemn them.

The true defn of legalism shows people circumventing God's methods, substituting their own methods, for salvation. People who follow their conscience do not circumvent.

What does ro5.13 mean to you, Esaias? Is it part of your theology or not?

Amanah · #**372** 08-11-2024, 07:47 AM

Don, you cherry pick verses totally out of context to get the meaning you want, out of context of the Book of Romans as a whole, and out of context of the entirety of the Bible. Sin reigned from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:14), and all were judged guilty (Romans 3:23, 5:12-19). In fact, the Bible teaches that 'from Adam to Moses, death reigned' (Romans 5:14), and 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:23). Furthermore, 'the wages of sin is death' (Romans 6:23), and 'the whole world is held accountable to God' (Romans 3:19). It's essential to consider the broader context of Scripture to accurately understand its teachings."

*Romans 5:14: Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
*Romans 3:23: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
*Romans 5:12-19: Describes the reign of sin and death from Adam to Moses.
*Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
*Romans 3:19: Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

donfriesen1 · #**373** 08-11-2024, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

Much ado has been made in this thread about "the conscience", yet the individual making so much use of the term, and basing their soteriology around it, never did actually define just what this "conscience" is.

So I present to the reader the following:

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology - Conscience
Conscience [N] [T] [E]
Conscience is a term that describes an aspect of a human being's self-awareness. It is part of a person's internal rational capacity and is not, as popular lore sometimes suggests, an audience room for the voice of God or of the devil. Conscience is a critical inner awareness that bears witness to the norms and values we recognize and apply. The complex of values with which conscience deals includes not only those we own, but the entire range of values to which we are exposed during life's journey. Consequently, there is always a sense of struggle in our reflective process. The witness of conscience makes its presence known by inducing mental anguish and feelings of guilt when we violate the values we recognize and apply. Conscience also provides a sense of pleasure when we reflect on conformity to our value system.

There is no Hebrew term in the Old Testament that is a linguistic equivalent for the classical Greek term suneidesis [suneivdhsi"]. The Hebrew term for "heart, " however, is a prominent term of self-awareness in the Old Testament. The lack of a developed concept of conscience in the Old Testament, as we see later in Paul, may be due to the worldview of the Hebrew person. Consciousness of life was of a relationship between God and a covenant community rather than an autonomous self-awareness between a person and his or her world. The only usage of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the canonical section of the Septuagint is in Ecclesiastes 10:20, "Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom, " where it is clearly used as self-reflection in secret (cf. the only verbal variations in Job 27:6 ; and Lev 5:1 ). Rabbinic Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls are consistent with the Old Testament in their lack of a vocabulary of conscience.

There are thirty occurrences of suneidesis [suneivdhsi"] in the New Testament (one more possible usage in a variant on John 8:9 ). The verb form (suneidon [suneivdw], sunoida) occurs only four times. The thirty occurrences are almost exclusively Pauline (22, with an additional 5 in Hebrews and 3 in 1 Peter), and eleven of them are in the Corinthian correspondence. The classical use of this word-group for simple knowledge occurs in ac 5:2, 12:12, and 14:6. The Pauline development of conscience as a monitor of actions and attitudes is particularly noted in the Pastoral Epistles, where adjectives like "good" ( 1 Timothy 1:5 1 Timothy 1:19 ; cf. Acts 23:1 ) and "clear" ( 1 Tim 3:9 ; 2 Tim 1:3 ; cf. Acts 24:16 ) are used to depict the conscience as affirming right action. This action, however, is not determined by conscience but by other criteria to which conscience bears witness. Paul's reference to the conscience being "seared" and "corrupted" ( 1 Tim 4:2 ; Titus 1:15 ) indicates that the function of conscience as a capacity for sound inward critique has been thwarted by resistance to God's revealed values. The writer of Hebrews views conscience as bearing a witness of being "clear" or "guilty" ( 9:9 9:14 ; 10:2 10:22 ; 13:18 ). First Peter reflects both the classical use of "awareness" ( 2:19 ) and the Pauline "clear" ( 3:16 ) and "good" ( 3:21 ) pattern.

Much more here ---> https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/conscience/

Well now, this thread just got a lot more interesting, didn't it? Good work Esaias!

[All those loving truth have no fear when previously unrevealed truth appears, if truth alone is deemed by them to be of highest importance. New truth should always be welcomed with open arms, even if contradicting previously held ideas. (Fear of 'the truth of entrance to heaven by the clean conscience' should not exist for those holding the truth of 'the new birth providing access to heaven' because they don't oppose one another, but work in tandem. One of these does not displace the other. One is alive for those who hear the Word. The other is alive for those who don't hear the Word.)]

We'll all admit that the conscience exists in Man, when we've all experienced the feelings when it had done its work in us. Such experience makes a theoretical concept reality for us. But where do we go to define it authoritatively outside of our experience? Has God emphatically defined the conscience we all know exists? If not, it thus is defined by Man, alongside what is recorded in the Word, by Man's experiences and may have varieties of definition according to Man's experiences, unless the Lord has made declarations of definition. Thus, there may never be a consensus of opinion of something so intangible as the conscience, when it depends on human opinion. That was said because Man's opinions are opinions and caution should always be used when heard from fallible Man. Beware lest you are robbed by philosophies of man, Paul says. Consensus of opinions may develope a definition held by all, but humans being humans, with different opinions, may result only in a partial consensus being agreed on.

What the writer of Baker's, (Gary T. Meadors, one singular author, which doesn't necessarily make him right or wrong) is saying is, that Man is born with the capacity of conscience and it needs inputs after birth to function. Thus, if there are no inputs installed after birth showing that doing wrong is bad, then when doing wrong the conscience will not poke us. And the same thing for doing right. Thus, a conscience can be more developed in one person than another, depending on the inputs. This makes sense.

And the question then becomes 'Is Meadors opinion the whole truth of the conscience? Are we 1) born completely empty of inputs, or is it possible that we are 2) born with some inputs already installed, capable of being enhanced by future inputs, or 3) born with a completed conscience that just needs later to be switched on, one aspect at a time, or 4) born with a completed working mature conscience?' How can it be determined which is true, that we are born empty or that we are born with inputs, when the conscience is such an unrevealed thing? Further to this, when God made Man, did God originally make A&E with a conscience which was deadened/dulled by the Fall, or did the conscience materialize as a result of the Fall? To which authority would we turn to, to answer these questions? If the conscience is part of being made in the image of God, then it came along with original Adam.

In addition to these questions is the question of the conscience's relation to being made in the image of God. What does it mean to be made in the image of God should be in the question if not in the answer. We have seen children who are the spitten image of a parent visually and also in spiritual characteristics. We know we aren't visually like God and the spiritual characteristics of being in the image of God are what? What exactly does it mean when it is said we are made in the image of God? What place does the conscience have in the image of God, if any?

With that said, it may be premature to say that someone is full of baloney, post 366, in referencing the conscience in relation to right-living, as Esaias seemingly does, jumping to conclusions based on the opinions of one, Meadors's words.

Asking the question 'Is the conscience part of the image of God in man?' of Meta AI, yields the following answer: The concept of the conscience being part of the image of God in man is a theological idea rooted in Christian doctrine...This concept implies that humans share certain attributes or qualities with God... The conscience is often understood as a moral compass or an inner voice that guides individuals to distinguish right from wrong...Many Christian theologians and scholars believe that the conscience is a key aspect of the Imago Dei. They argue that the conscience is a God-given faculty that enables humans to discern moral truth...This perspective posits that the conscience is a vital component of humanity's likeness to God...The conscience is capable of recognizing moral absolutes, which is seen as a reflection of God's absolute moral standards...The conscience can be trained...Please note that this is a complex and debated topic within Christian theology.... All good thoughts and are aggregate opinions from Meta/Man. And contradicting Meadors, nonetheless, proving my opinion that where you have 3 people you may have 4 opinions on the same subject.

The first exhibition of the conscience may be Ge3, when A&E ran to hide from hearing the Lord's presence in the Garden, after taking the fruit.

Another is Cain in Ge4, who responds to God with it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me. Where did that thought originate? Had God indicated such to humanity (we have no such record) or did the thought come out of his humanity alone, from a guilty conscience and the fallen nature. The carnal nature of Man expects/insists on revenge for wrong doing done to them; tit for tat. Knowing this about his own carnal nature made Cain realise that others would also have the same thoughts and know they would apply this rationale to him; they will take revenge on him for Abel's death. All these thoughts, without ever hearing a word from God that we can point to. What???...coming from Cain's carnal nature thoughts. The question is: Does a carnal Man still have the image of God in them, and don't both manifest themselves though in a carnal person? What these thoughts from Cain shows is an internal moral code, coming from the image of God, and hadn't come from God speaking on the subject, that we know of. Logically, we could assume that God had spoken to them on the subject because it makes sense to do so, but it is without evidence and thus only a logical assumption. Partially, what happens in our thinking is, we apply retroactively what values have been established for ourselves in our present, to the experiences of those others in the past. It may not be right to do so, even when it seems logical for us to do so.

Evang.Benincasa · #**374** 08-11-2024, 05:10 PM

Quote: