John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don, you cherry pick verses Of course anyone making a point uses the verses they want to back up the point they make. A curse on anyone who purposely ignores any scriptures not supporting their point. This is deceitful lying to oneself, which I trust you haven't seen in me. 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. Please, if you would, dear sister, give me specifics to your accusation, as I don't have knowledge of doing as you say. 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." Correct. All dead in sin and in Adam all die, including babies. But being dead in sin does not prevent the person who has no knowldege of the Word from heeding the conscience placed by God. Any responding to the conscience are listening to God, who places it. Any listening to the God-given conscience are acknowledging wrong doing and wanting to do right. This sounds much like repentance and faith, which some who have heard the Word do, and these by conscience do when not having the Word. While you correctly point out that all are dead in sin, that is all you do -- showing them dead, but this doesn't prevent in anyway that God could provide access to someone who has never heard the Word a home in heaven. What you show by these verses is that they are dead in sin, which I agree to. What you fail to explain is how babies are given access to heaven though not born again, when you contend, wrongly, that the only means of access is the new birth. The babies example shows that the new birth does not cover every persons access to heaven, that God has provided at least one other way -- having a clean conscience. Ro5.13 says, in so many words, that God does not judge those who haven't heard the Word as if they had. Babies fit into this category, as do the gentiles of Ro2.12-16 who have no law. Plz say that you also believe Ro5.13 is part of your faith. Also, by your allegation that only the born again gain heaven you say those who are baptized go to hell, though forgiven. Imagine a God who fries someone he has forgiven. Not!

If you widen your faith to include Ro2.12-16 and Ro5.13, then it will eliminate that problem shown by your theology. Start today, drink the Kool-Aid. Allowing this portion of the Word to reign in your life is refreshing, removing doubts thereby.

*Romans 5:14: Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, All are born with a dead spiritual nature 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.In a time when Paul says they have sin, which is usually called the transgression of the law, which law do they sin against when Paul says there was no law? It must be the eternal moral code of God which is instilled in Man when made in the image of God, recognised by the God-given conscience.
*Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Let's practice the context rule you say all should use. The context of the start of the NT church is Israel, where everyone has the Word. This context is the area in which the gospel writers write in, where most everyone has knowledge of the Word. When the Apostle to the Gentiles writes to Gentile churches he writes to those who have already received the Word and is the context within which he writes. Very few of those who first read his writings have never not heard the Word. Thus the context which the NT is written in is those who have previously heard. In the world, Amanah, is it possible that there are a few who have never ever heard the Word? Of those few there are some who are sensitive to their conscience and to what their mind tells them is right and wrong living. Those few are what Paul addresses in Ro2.12-16, Ro5.13, who are out of context with the majority of the NT scriptures. What applies to those who are the majority does not apply to those out of context. Ro5.13 says this is true. God does not judge those who don't have the Word as if they do.
*Romans 3:19: Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, A just merciful judges uses discretion in those circumstances when someone who hasn't heard the law breaks it unknowingly. God is that just judge, not imputing sin when there was no law, though these were dead in sin. These will be judged by the conscience at the last Judgment. Those whose consciences are clear will be given access to heaven, the just judge judging justly. To not provide someone with a clean conscience access to heaven would be unjust.so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
To which add:
*1Co15.22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. That those inChrist are made alive does not exclude the possibility that those who have a clean conscience are given access to heaven. It simply means that those who are in Christ have are. It is not an exclusionary statement of all others.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

They also called Paul a babbler. I'll take that as a compliment. Thx

It’s not a complement. You are certainly not an apostle. Especially not the Apostle Paul. You probably have a picture of Pope John Paul II next to your bed.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

As pointed out in other posts, when God made Man they were made in the image of God. God has within himself an eternal internal moral code, which is placed in Man, the conscience being a part of this, when made in his image. Thus any listening to the conscience would be seen living right in comparison to this moral code or "law". Anyone who thinks this living-right is being compared to any cultural or religious code of Man has missed the point of what I've been saying. If this missing the point is intentional it is sad commentary on those doing so. If it is acccidental, then please, from this point forward, place closer attention to what is written.

You still refuse to deal with the Aztecs. Did the Aztecs have this “moral code?” How about the Vikings? The Celts? The Pics? Are they babysitting in Heaven?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Nope, most people would call me Apostolic.

Most people probably see you and walk the other way.

[Esaias]

Don apparently didn't read the article I posted about "The Conscience". Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Could the conscience be witnessing to God's eternal moral code, which is placed in Man when made in the image of God? It seems to logically fit.

Now you are deciding how your doctrine is supposed to work? Didn’t figure out the details Don? Could be? God’s moral law? Placed in man when man was created in God’s image? Don, you are making this stuff up. You really never test driven this teaching before? Don, you know something? The above post sounds pretty silly. Maybe you might want to go back to the wood shed and see if you can polish it up a bit. But I doubt that will even work. Don, maybe you might want to join a church and sit on a pew to get some teaching.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don apparently didn't read the article I posted about "The Conscience". Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

It looks like from his current posting that Don is just now starting to read what we were posting. Probably will get to what you posted in a few days. But seriously Don could care less what we think. If the smoke don’t rise from his chimney, it isn’t fire.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don apparently didn't read the article I posted about "The Conscience". Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

Indeed I did read it, with great interest and had a good drink. As I pointed out, it is the opinion of one man which is contradicted by the aggragate opinion of Meta Ai. The aggregate opinion of Meta Ai is the average of opinions of Christian scholars it scans and their views of the conscience's relation to the image of God, and apparently contradicting the views of the one writer you reference. But keep trying, and you may find 3 or 4 who will agree with what now appears to be a non-standard view, bolstering your opinion on the matter. The important one to side with is the one who wrote the Book. Don't neglect that one.

[donfriesen1]

Post 181 Ananah says Firstly, the illustration of the king and the fields is a poor representation of the Gospel. Every illustration or parable has its strengths and weaknesses and needs proper discernment applied to get it right. Yet, even though I pointed out this weakness in that post for all to see, you have taken the time to again repeat my admittion of weakness. Why do you rub the salt in my wound when I had admitted its weakness? What motivates giving pain to someone who admits fault?

Paul is not teaching that those who have never heard the Gospel will be saved by their good works or conscience. Yet he says these who haven't heard the Word, these have the law of God written in their heart and that doers of the law are justified. This sounds like Paul says they are saved, ready for heaven. How is it so, when they don't have the Word, that yet they are justified but by the conscience which is referred to in the word Paul used, nature?

Furthermore, Romans 3:20 and Romans 3:28 clearly state that no one will be justified by works of the law or good deeds, but only through faith in Jesus Christ. The conscience is not a means of justification or salvation; it is a witness to God's law and our sinfulness (Romans 2:14-15). True, and those who heed to the conscience are acknowledging to themselves that some things are wrong and some things are right, that they are being tempted to sin when they should do right. As to attempts to salvation by good works, the background of the writers of the NT, except for Luke who might be a Gentile, is that they are Jewish and have been all their lives living in a predominently Pharisaic culture, with its 'salvation by good works mentality'. Thus, the context of their writing is with this background knowledge, even when writing to Gentile churches who have both Jew and Gentile in their congregations and synagogues in their communities. Paul thus points out an anomaly outside of the usual context, when he writes to the Roman church about those who are outside of the norm, some rare occurrence of Gentiles who live right by the conscience when not having heard the law or the gospel. Those who heed the conscience's prods are thus heeding the one who creates Man with a conscience, thus shown following God's ways. Are those who follow God's ways described as legalist's or obedient? My answer is obedient, and seeking to follow the ways of God who instilled the conscience, but not as if by good works apart from God's ways, as those do who attempt to gain heaven by good works apart from God's ways do.

Lastly, the idea that God would be unjust to condemn those who have never heard the Gospel is a misunderstanding of God's character and the nature of sin. Yet this is your view of God's character. Your contention is that these without the Word who yield to the conscience alone, living right thereby, will be d.mned when not born again. Do you not then say you misunderstand yourself? God is just to d.mn those who love a lie more than truth and those who love sin. These who are prodded to live right by the conscience do not lie to themselves that they are OK to sin. God wouldn't be just to d.mn those who make every effort to do what they know, in obeying the conscience, when they don't have the Word. It is you who presents a God who would d.mn these obedient ones just because they aren't born again not having ecer heard the gospel. God is not obligated to save anyone, and our sinfulness separates us from Him. The Gospel is not a matter of "getting what we deserve" but rather receiving grace and mercy through Jesus Christ. Yet he obligates himself by his love and takes extreme measures to save those you seem to be too eager to fry. Those who heed the conscience have admitted to themselves that sin is wrong, showing a repentant attitude thereby and choose another path, the path of right-living, showing they want the way God has instilled to guide them. You rather, like he, should be looking for ways to bring into heaven as many as possible, like a merciful God or person would.

In conclusion, the argument presented distorts the biblical teaching on salvation What you've correctly presented as salvation by faith in the shed blood of Jesus, receiving its benefits by obedience to the command of the new birth, works in conjunction with Ro2.12-16; Ro5.13. They do not oppose one another but complement each other. One is the message of Kingdom salvation which God wants all to hear with all its great benefits and the other is for those who don't get a chance to hear it, yet wanting to live right the only way they know how when not having the Word. It does not distort the Gospel one iota, which remains intact as presented to the world by the likes of Apostolics. If your understanding of Ro2 is that it distorts Ac2 then it is a misunderstanding on your part. They co-exist without conflict.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Indeed I did read it, with great interest and had a good drink. As I pointed out, it is the opinion of one man which is contradicted by the aggragate opinion of Meta Ai. The aggregate opinion of Meta Ai is the average of opinions of Christian scholars it scans and their views of the conscience's relation to the image of God, and apparently contradicting the views of the one writer you reference. But keep trying, and you may find 3 or 4 who will agree with what now appears to be a non-standard view, bolstering your opinion on the matter. The important one to side with is the one who wrote the Book. Don't neglect that one.

You can't get your theology from AI, as you admit it's the broad road that leads to destruction, not the straight and narrow path that few there be who find it. And AI without a doubt has a liberal bias. As Elder Benincasa said in another thread, there is a man behind the curtain. Mainstream Churchianity is going to split hell wide open. Yet alone your right living cannibal.