John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm sorry you don't like this truth Which truth are you talking about? , but that doesn't change it. Amanah has learned some bad habits from Dom Benincasa -- putting words in people's mouths they haven't spoken. But, all who love truth love all truth, as I do.

The Bible teaches that salvation has always been by faith. Faith is not empty and is based on knowledge of God. The gentiles that Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16 do not have the law (do not have knowledge of the Word), which makes it impossible that they would have heard the gospel to have faith in it. But that doesn't prevent from growing faith, Paul describing them as justified, butdo not have the law (do not have knowledge of the Word). Believe what Paul says. In Hebrews 11, we see examples of Old Testament heroes who demonstrated faith in the coming Messiah, and in Romans, we learn that faith is the foundation of our relationship with God. True.

In Hebrews 11, we read about:

- Abel, who offered a better sacrifice by faith (Hebrews 11:4) Do we have record that Abel had communication with God? No. Do we have record that a command was given him to sacrifice? No. What Abel knew of sacrifice he must have learned from Adam and Eve, who learned of sacrifice when deducing it from the example God had set. We also have no record of God commanding them to sacrifice. The important things of their life must have been passed down through the generations, till Moses the writer of Ge pens it. But strangely, nothing is passed along to be recorded about something of utmost importance -- of sacrifice. Did those of Ge sacrifice? Yes, but where is the Ge command for it? But it is not illogical to think that something had been commanded of them, but better to think that something about sacrifice was deduced from God's example. Although it is logical to assume commands were given it is only assumption. Should any attempt be made to base doctrine on assumption alone? No. We do have record that Cain's sacrifice was rejected and Abel's accepted -- that it was the better of the two sacrifices, the one to be followed.

- Noah, who built an ark by faith (Hebrews 11:7) Noah had communication with God, the basis of his faith. Knowledge of God is not known only by the Book or from personal communication. He did not have a book to consult and his communication was personal, except what was indicated by the Lord which applied to all. But Paul has said there was no law, Ro5.13, leading to a need to reconcile statements. How do you reconcile these statements, Amanah? Paul, knowing of Noah by the Book, certainly knew of what the Lord had said to all through Noah, yet still says they had no law, Ro5.13.

- Abraham, who obeyed by faith (Hebrews 11:8-10)
- Moses, who persevered by faith (Hebrews 11:24-28) Of course. Which book did Abraham and Moses get their faith from, proving to us that faith can come from other sources than just the Book. But this isn't accepted by you as one who insists that only the Word brings faith. But you are able to accept that faith can come from many ways -- you can change. Do it.

These individuals, along with many others, were saved by grace through faith, looking forward to the coming Messiah. God is not limited to save by a faith that comes only from the Book, and these Gentiles, Ro2, who heed the conscience have a faith that tells them to listen to that God-given method which tells them to turn from doing sin to doing the right thing. To deny this is to deny the one who instilled the conscience. Why would you want to limit God when the immenseness of his abilities testifies that he is capable of many ways. That said, I would agree if you'd say that all who reject the gospel, Ac2.38, reject the God who presents it. The testimony of Paul of these gentiles, Ro2, shows them with a heart which may have accepted the gospel had they ever had heard it.


In Romans, Paul writes:

- For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28) The context of the NT writer, the background story, is what the dominant religious/political party had established -- justification by good works of the law, and the writers are always trying to teach (and get out of their system that which had been entrenched in society by generations of the Pharisees) faith and obedience in God's Word as opposed to salvation by good works alone.
- The righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17)
- Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)

Paul emphasizes that salvation has always been by faith, and that the law cannot justify us. Instead, we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the law and became the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Should we then say that babies who are in heaven are covered by the Blood, though not repenting nor being baptized? How is it that they gain heaven without the Blood? Are these innocent ones, instead in hell? What say you?

Whether under the old covenant or the new, salvation has always been by faith:

- "Without faith, it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)
- "The righteous shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17)

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, did I happen to ask you, how long were you in an Apostolic Pentecostal Church? Relevance? Truth is. It is timeless, independent of how long someone has been in the faith. Any attempting to establish truth on a time basis is not using a relevant measurement stick. Thy Word is truth is the Lord Jesus' answer. Dig deeper Dom, you've got it in you to get the answer from the Word. Never give up.

And then there's the issue that asks why someone who says he loves to come to this AFF thread just to mock me. Really? You want personal answers not related to the thread answered? I think not.

And read my posts a little more carefully for some of the questions you've asked answers of me for, having already been answered.

But keep preaching the gospel of Ac2.38 and Jn 3.5,Evangelist Benincasa. God's got a blessing for you're doing so, in spite of my refusal to answer.

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

There is another thread discussing tongues as an initial sign, and how it relates to soteriology. Also, I’m not putting words in your mouth. Your mouth is too full of foot. Right down to your ecclesiastical knee cap. I’m just drawing conclusions from what you are posting. Concerning people going to Heaven minus Jesus’ blood. And what of those babies in Heaven, Dom? Are they covered with the blood of Jesus though not repenting nor being baptised? Will you respond to this? I think not, but surprise me. Are they the exception proving your Biblical view is incomplete, needing adjustment?

Don, do you speak in tongues? I don’t mean Ramalamadong. Or Geeda, geeda, geeda, geeda. I mean as the Spirit gives the utterance. Jesus told Nicodemus this, τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that the Spirit breathes where it wishes and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. Hence when someone is born of the Spirit, you will hear the Spirit’s voice. Yet, like all other parables they were designed though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.’ I spoke to an Apostolic preacher about my conscience belief and he agreed with my views. He's been preaching about 47 years, was UPC district official for many, many of those years. Does that give it any koodoos in your estimation of things? To answer my own question: It does and it doesn't. A man's opinion is just that, a man's opinion and standing beside God's Word opinions are worthless. But coming from a godly faithfull preacher it has some weight. The weight of one faithful man. So, depending on the opinion of the man who hears it, it may mean alot or may mean a little. Regardless, if you and I look long and hard enough we'll finally find at least one person who will agree with us. Again, man's opinion doesn't amount to much. You and I are both left-fielders, according to our opinions. You as not believing in the rapture and me by you as believing what I believe about the conscience. You've described me as spiritually lost, and maybe destined for hell? In the end what God alone believes will make the difference.

But keep trying!

Don, people need to speak in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I spoke to an Apostolic preacher about my conscience belief and he agreed with my views.

Don, I'll have you to know that whoever you spoke with means zero to this discussion. Would you like me to tell you why? Because he isn't here, you also don't supply us with his name and location. Does he have anything recorded on line spouting the same belief as you? But, we are just to take your word that he believes the same nonsense you've been posting here? You are so silly.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

He's been preaching about 47 years, was UPC district official for many, many of those years.

Don, does he have a name? Is he willing to log onto the forum and defend this teaching? Also he has been in the UPC for 47 years believing in what you believe? Well, buddy boy, looks like being in the UPC for 47 years hasn't done him a bit of good. Both of you believe babies are crawling around heaven?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Relevance? Truth is. It is timeless, independent of how long someone has been in the faith.

Unless you've been in the UPC for 47 years?

[votivesoul]

Unless something more substantive is on the menu, I intend to lock this thread. At this point, all the matters under consideration have been discussed, all the fingers have been pointed, all the claims have been made. It's now just redundancy ad nauseum.

Anyone object?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, I'll have you to know that whoever you spoke with means zero to this discussion. Would you like me to tell you why? Because he isn't here, you also don't supply us with his name and location. Does he have anything recorded on line spouting the same belief as you? But, we are just to take your word that he believes the same nonsense you've been posting here? You are so silly.

That's what I said in the reply you quote, Dom. Even if a person comes back from the dead they won't believe it unless they believe the scriptures. Any refusing the scriptural teaching I've presented will refuse the testimony of 10 '50-year preachers', because, just because.

Have you noticed that Evang benincasa doesn't come out directly to say that babies go to hell, though he seems to indicate this by his comments?
.

Don, does he have a name? Is he willing to log onto the forum and defend this teaching? Also he has been in the UPC for 47 years believing in what you believe? Well, buddy boy, looks like being in the UPC for 47 years hasn't done him a bit of good. Both of you believe babies are crawling around heaven?

.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Unless something more substantive is on the menu, I intend to lock this thread. At this point, all the matters under consideration have been discussed, all the fingers have been pointed, all the claims have been made. It's now just redundancy ad nauseum.

Anyone object?

I'm in favor of locking it due to extreme redundancy!

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Unless something more substantive is on the menu, I intend to lock this thread. At this point, all the matters under consideration have been discussed, all the fingers have been pointed, all the claims have been made. It's now just redundancy ad nauseum.

Anyone object?

Yes, true that it's repetitious, although I did learn something new during Amanah's post 468.

I'm OK with the locking.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Unless something more substantive is on the menu, I intend to lock this thread. At this point, all the matters under consideration have been discussed, all the fingers have been pointed, all the claims have been made. It's now just redundancy ad nauseum.

Anyone object?

I agree. Nothing more can be added. Don’s last post pretty much the same as his first. All have given their thoughts in triplicate. Anyone wanting to read through the thread can form their opinion with a complete dissection of the subject. Unless, Don is willing to bring in his 47 years in the UPC preacher to add his idea of Don’s view? Otherwise put a bullet in this thread, so it might die a noble death.