John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Just for me and the kids. I was thinking something like 30x30, or 32x34, or 28x32, somewhere along those lines. The roof would be a ferrocement barrel vault, so two sides and the roof would be one piece (the roof serves as the two load bearing walls) with the two vertical walls not load bearing but the whole thing still "monolithic" in that the whole thing is steel mesh with thin shell concrete (technically cement, I guess?).

No machines, I would be building a heavy bag rack to hold 4 bags max, likely out of either 4x4 or maybe 4x6 posts bolted together in a square frame and just sitting on the floor. The weight of the structure and the square shape should maintain its integrity although I suspect the vibration from hitting the bags may require the rack to be repositioned every now and then back to its original spot. No electricity, I would simply run and extension cord to a shop fan in the summer and use a propane heater in the winter if needed. I can use those cheap solar powered rechargeable lawn lights for lighting at night or even tiki torches for that real old school effect.

Mats would be mma type puzzle piece mats or a used wrestling mat if I can find one on the cheap, but that would be for later, we're currently in boxing mode not grappling mode right now.

Like I said, a ferrocement Quonset hut type structure. I only thought of ferrocement because the price of lumber has been through the roof since 2020, and steel sheeting is even more expensive. Did you know corrugated barn tin is now more of a designer luxury item? And getting curved corrugated sheet metal is next to impossible here in the US. If we lived in the UK I could literally just order the stuff from over a dozen suppliers and get it delivered, but alas here in the citadel of freedom and capitalism can't get it at all.

I am also thinking ferrocement might not be any cheaper. In India? Sure thing, cheapest way to build, even peasants can do it. Here in the US? Practically have to be landed gentry to be able to afford anything sturdier than cardboard.

How about a 30x30 prefab garage?

Or you could just put up a pole barn? The bags would still stay dry.
Plus MMA mats would be folded up when not in use.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How about a 30x30 prefab garage?

Or you could just put up a pole barn? The bags would still stay dry.
Plus MMA mats would be folded up when not in use.

Well, the 30x30 prefab garage or carport would be expen$ive. A pole barn would require trusses, decking for the roof plus a covering (shingles?) plus siding. Sheet metal could be used for the roof but that is where I discovered the outrageous price of barn tin. I've looked back and forth for over a year at the options, at the moment ferrocement seems the simplest and least expensive option. A barrel vault doesn't require separate roofing (the side walls are the roof etc), all it requires is a mesh and cement mix.

The prefab garage or carport (even without walls) would cost close to 5000 or more, and I'd still have to make walls and a floor. A soilcrete floor could work but I still have to elevate it above existing grade and provide some kind of drainage.

I don't trust myself to make wooden trusses and steel trusses would cost just as much as wooden ones (I'd use less but each would cost more). I'm not sure I could just do a slant roof (lean-to style) with 2x8 rafters for a 30ft span, I mean I've seen some sketchy carports but...

I thought about buying a big canopy tent off Amazon and just coating it with cement to make a sort of fabric-reinforced concrete shell. I know that has been done before with burlap, not sure if the cheap chinesium tent fabric would bond to it well enough.

I also thought about making a hoop house out of 1 inch PVC and putting construction netting over it all or maybe plastic window screen and then plastering that with latex cement. 1 inch pvc 10ft sticks are $1 cheaper than 10ft rebar rods... But I still have the issue of sealing where the walls meet the floor...

Now I see why engineers make the big bux.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, the 30x30 prefab garage or carport would be expen$ive. A pole barn would require trusses, decking for the roof plus a covering (shingles?) plus siding. Sheet metal could be used for the roof but that is where I discovered the outrageous price of barn tin. I've looked back and forth for over a year at the options, at the moment ferrocement seems the simplest and least expensive option. A barrel vault doesn't require separate roofing (the side walls are the roof etc), all it requires is a mesh and cement mix.

The prefab garage or carport (even without walls) would cost close to 5000 or more, and I'd still have to make walls and a floor. A soilcrete floor could work but I still have to elevate it above existing grade and provide some kind of drainage.

I don't trust myself to make wooden trusses and steel trusses would cost just as much as wooden ones (I'd use less but each would cost more). I'm not sure I could just do a slant roof (lean-to style) with 2x8 rafters for a 30ft span, I mean I've seen some sketchy carports but...

I thought about buying a big canopy tent off Amazon and just coating it with cement to make a sort of fabric-reinforced concrete shell. I know that has been done before with burlap, not sure if the cheap chinesium tent fabric would bond to it well enough.

I also thought about making a hoop house out of 1 inch PVC and putting construction netting over it all or maybe plastic window screen and then plastering that with latex cement. 1 inch pvc 10ft sticks are $1 cheaper than 10ft rebar rods... But I still have the issue of sealing where the walls meet the floor...

Now I see why engineers make the big bux.

Engineers make big money so when we build it doesn’t fall down and kill those in and around the building.

Everything is inspected down here in South Florida. Therefore we apply for a permit on everything from the slab to the roof. A pre fab 30x30 goes for about $15,000 installed on a slab. That’s not including the electricity connection. Yet, after you are done you got a really nice gym. Be it a tool shed or a barn it has to be able to withstand the storm. Putting something together with wire lath and mud may become a projectile during a storm. We don’t only need a good strong foundation, but also need to be fastened strongly to that foundation. A building fitly framed together. Before we build we must determine the cost on how much we are willing to spend….

What happened to the author of this thread?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ok, speaking hypothetically...

Say you have a yard with a heavy clay soil content, very expansive. And you wanted to build a barrel vault shaped structure out of ferrocement. Think thin shell concrete Quonset hut. So, alternatives to removing the soil, bringing in new soil for a building pad, then footers and a slab?

Something like this maybe...

Excavate the topsoil to remove all vegetation. Import clean fill dirt and mix in with portland cement and rototill it, to make soilcrete. This would be built up to about 6 inches above existing grade, to prevent water from flowing on top of the soilcrete "floor" from the surrounding terrain. Meanwhile, dig a footer trench around this area, put in french drain to drain water to one corner and away from building site. Fill with rubble, then place CMU block on top to make a "stem wall" (one block high) around perimeter. Place rebar in CMU holes and fill with concrete, rebar extending out of block tops, then tie in rebar hoops extending from one side to the other. Tie in lathe or mesh, chicken wire, etc, across the hoops and around the other two sides making a barrel vault with two vertical walls (north and south walls vertical, east and west sides are the sides of the vault or hoop roof), frame doors and windows in the vertical walls, then start slathering a latex-cement mix, then paint.

Only thing is do I need a vapor barrier? Moisture barrier under the soilcrete? Or on top? And, how do I put a vapor barrier under the block without sealing off the rubble trench and french drain defeating its purpose? Or am I over thinking it?

I live on gumbo, the Red River valley of the North, in Winnipeg, Canada. I worked 50 years as a carpenter. The foundation contractors here would say to remove the tennis court topping. Do it once, do it right. If the money is available, piles and a concrete grade beam is the best. Talking to a local contractor is good advice to follow, which may prevent regrets later. But then, "good, better, best" always have different price points and money issues may dictate the lesser of the three.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I live on gumbo, the Red River valley of the North, in Winnipeg, Canada. I worked 50 years as a carpenter. The foundation contractors here would say to remove the tennis court topping. Do it once, do it right. If the money is available, piles and a concrete grade beam is the best. Talking to a local contractor is good advice to follow, which may prevent regrets later. But then, "good, better, best" always have different price points and money issues may dictate the lesser of the three.

That's the thing, it's just a boxing gym space for when we can't be outside due to weather, plus a place to hang the heavy bags without them being destroyed by the sun and rain, dew, etc. So, "good enough" is, well, good enough.

Just trying to find the cheapest way to make a usable space. At the moment I am rearranging my garage to make room. It's not ideal, kind of small, plus I have to find a place for all the yard tools, mowers, etc, but we run what we brung, improvise, adapt, overcome.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

That's the thing, it's just a boxing gym space for when we can't be outside due to weather, plus a place to hang the heavy bags without them being destroyed by the sun and rain, dew, etc. So, "good enough" is, well, good enough.

Just trying to find the cheapest way to make a usable space. At the moment I am rearranging my garage to make room. It's not ideal, kind of small, plus I have to find a place for all the yard tools, mowers, etc, but we run what we brung, improvise, adapt, overcome.

This is what I do. The heavy bag is taken down and put away after I use it. Which like (weight plates and dumbbells) putting them away is part of the work out. If you are looking for a place to stow the yard tools just put up a shed from Home Depot. Or get a Northern tool jobsite box. My entire gym is outside (looks like Vietnam) under the mango and coconut trees. I periodically spray can anything rusting. But speedbag, heavy bag and uppercut bag get taken down and stowed away when I'm done.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I live on gumbo, the Red River valley of the North, in Winnipeg, Canada. I worked 50 years as a carpenter. The foundation contractors here would say to remove the tennis court topping. Do it once, do it right. If the money is available, piles and a concrete grade beam is the best. Talking to a local contractor is good advice to follow, which may prevent regrets later. But then, "good, better, best" always have different price points and money issues may dictate the lesser of the three.

Welcome back to the discussion.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sorry, but you are simply wrong here. Paul did NOT say "the gentiles which have not the Word/Gospel". He specifically says they have not the LAW, and the context is clearly the Sinaitic Covenant:

You quote Ro2.7 which refers to Jews and the law. And you quote Ro2.14 which refers to the Gentiles not having the law. Agreed, that references are to the OT law, and it was never contended to be otherwise, and it must of necessity be the OT scriptures he refers to because these are the only scriptures available for Paul to refer to. The NT is not yet compiled for any to have. Any law/Word must be OT. I was using the words Word and Gospel as substitutes of the word law because Paul is writing to Roman Christians. Christians usually use Word today more as a term than law.

While Paul says twice that the Gentile have no law I hear you saying that these Gentiles must have had the law because, you say, they are born again. You say they must be born again because they show the work of the law written in their hearts. What you fail to show is how these Gentiles, who Paul clearly says don't have the law, have faith enough to be born again. Any who are born again do so from faith in the Gospel. But Paul says these are without law and must then also be thought to be without having heard the Gospel. Paul says they are without law, while you contradict Paul (saying elsewhere in this thread that they have the law) by saying they had to have had either the law or the Gospel because they are showing the works of the law in their hearts. Why do you not agree with Paul? If not so, how is it that these have this faith without having the law to place their faith in?

Romans 2:7,14 KJV

Romans 2:17-20 KJV

You aren't "reading between the lines", you are adding to and taking away from the Word of God, this is exactly how we get trinitarianism and every other false doctrine.

What other shadows can you throw on me? So far it been: Calvinism, salvation by good works, adding to the Word. What will the next insinuation you throw over me be?

These Gentiles show the work of the law written in the heart, which is this:

Hebrews 8:10 KJV

Remember, that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE GOD. And that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

Romans 3:9-10 KJV

Romans 3:19 KJV

Romans 3:21-25 KJV

Everybody is guilty, everybody needs faith in Jesus to escape the consequences of their sin. There is no "going to heaven apart from faith in Christ". (Never mind the fact nobody is going to heaven to begin with, but I am sure you get what I mean here.)

Man is born spirit, soul and body. We, by the nature given to us, have something within us which "tells" us there is a God. Our spiritual nature "tells" this to us without the Word. As such, most men have a measure of faith of sorts. It is faith enough to tell them there is a God and in some to change their sinful ways. Also: the heavens declare the glory of God. Any listening to the natural world also receive faith without the Word. This kind of faith can motivate to right living but isn't covenant kind of faith. For that the Word is needed.

Truth needs no more support than for God to speak it once. When the Lord told Adam he would die if he ate the fruit he said it once and it was truth. Its generally believed that doctrine needs 2 or 3 witnesses, but if the Lord says something once, that's enough to establish it as truth, including Ro2.12-16.

Elsewhere in this tread you ask if I believe in salvation by good works. Saved by works? Last time I checked the heart and will are located somewhere in the mind of Man. The mind is a function in the brain, which functions by molecules and atoms. When any exercises their heart and will it thus is the function of these atoms and molecules. Therefore, for any to be saved by faith involves the heart and will resulting in the movements of these atoms and molecules. Is this salvation-by-the-good-works of the atoms and molecules? It appears so. Thus, all are saved by their good works when they exercise their will to get saved by faith. I trust that you believe that repentance is necessary for salvation and is also a good work.

Paul says they do by nature the things in the law. What do you say this nature is, which they have or use that causes them to do the things of the law? It appears that you would deny the possibility that a good change can occur in their heart from a response to their conscience, and that all heart-changes can only come about by the new birth. Is this your argument? Have you forgotten the times when your Dad's strong hand brought about a good change in your behaviour without the Bible? Or the times of a calamity in the church family motivated positive changes in all church families, without the Word? It is God who places the conscience in Man for a purpose and it should be allowed that the good changes from it will effect the heart, right?

So, for the sake of repeating my argument, while switching the words to the more scripturally accurate 'law', lets see what difference it would make. I had pointed out previously that Paul said twice in v14 that the Gentiles did not have the Word (Gospel) because he writes to Christians in the NT times. I'll now say that Paul points out twice that the Gentile did not have the law. If so, how then can they come to saving faith to bring about the new birth when they have no law? Where will the faith to become born again Christians come from? Does NT faith come from reading the law of the 10 Commandments which Paul says they don't have, which you say they have? Do people become born again from hearing the law of Moses or from hearing the Gospel? And you say that Paul here must refer to the law of Sinai, resulting in what you say is the works of the Spirit written in the heart, and do you now say that the law of Sinai results in the receiving of the righteousness of the Spirit, that the Sinai law brings the new birth resulting in a heart-change with the Word of God is written in the heart coming from Sinai law? Is this what you'd have us believe? If these Gentiles are born again as you say, then the law here must refer to the Word of the Gospel, for it is the Gospel and not the law which results in law being written on the heart. But these Ro2 Gentiles are without either law or Gospel. If someone has come to them with the Gospel they also certainly have the law, but Paul says they don't have the law. That effect they have in their hearts has come from following their conscience and intellect. To assume that Paul refers to these Gentiles as born again Christians, showing the work of the law of God written in the hearts by the Spirit comes from your assumption. Such assumption you've cited me of wrongly doing when I described them as unregenerate without the Word. You assume them as regenerate because they evidence changed hearts but coming about even though Paul says they're without having the law. Why do you get to make assumptions and others don't? Why do you get to read between the lines and others don't? Well, its done by you because you say the scriptures show them having this change of heart from the Spirit and you must do this assumption/reading-between-the-lines to provide the reason why they've had a change of heart because you believe it can only come from the Spirit. I invite you to expand your views of how a change of heart can come about to include ways other than the new birth alone.

Whether the word law or Word is used in understanding v14, the conclusion is the same. The Gentiles are without it. And somehow these Gentiles have produced a result in their hearts which leads to a clear conscience which gains them admittance to Heaven. How are these Gentiles-without-law any different from Gentile Enoch, who lived quite some time before Sinai? Plz don't nit-pick because I call him a Gentile. That he had no law to guide his life is evidenced by Paul in Ro5.13. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. He says there was no law. Adam and Eve had perhaps only one law - "don't eat that fruit". After they sinned, the Garden and its one law was locked up, effectively annulling this law, leaving the world without law till Sinai. What then brought the difference in Enoch? This godly man must have listened to his conscience and used his reasoning abilities to motivate him to godly living. It didn't come from law which didn't exist according to Paul. He had a testimony which granted him entrance to Heaven coming from his clear conscience, just like the Gentiles Paul refers to in Ro2. Could God justly condemn someone in the NT with a clear conscience when he didn't condemn Enoch? God's accuser would say "Foul. You can't let Enoch into Heaven on a clear conscience and exclude those Gentiles who has a clear conscience." God is just and without partiality. Perhaps it was Paul's meditations on the life of Enoch which resulted in stating the conclusions he makes in v12-16? Paul says these Gentiles are without law and they have clear consciences with a ticket to Heaven.

To be seen eager to refuse entrance to any not born again, who haven't heard the Word or the full Gospel, may deny the working of the conscience placed by God. Admittedly, there will be very few who fit in this category but they will exist. Jn3/Ac2 do not contradict Ro2 but work hand-in-hand with it. Any zeal for Jn3/Ac2 should not deny what God shows in Ro2. They are both God's declared will and in effect in this day. It says this of a certain Gentile who wasn't a Christian in Ac10.2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. What say you? Had this man died before hearing the Gospel would he have a home in Heaven or Hell? What is your judgement of him? Did he possess NT salvation? No, for the angel was sent to get him to hear the Gospel to get saved. Well then, in the ways of your thinking this righteous man was on his way to Hell. Not in my book and not in Paul's book. His conscience would testify on Judgement Day that he had lived a godly life. Did he have NT salvation before he met Peter? No, but he certainly had something from God. Plz spare me the arguments that this is a lot of hypothetical talk about Cornelius because he eventually actually got born again. Plz, just see what it is I say for what this actually portrays - Cornelius as a righteous man who needed to be born again for full NT covenant salvation.

The arguments presented in this thread against what I had written appear to think that I don't believe in Jn3/Ac2. For the record I do, that this is the Gospel which must be preached and believed and received. But I also believe in Ro2 and so should everyone else. Its in the Book as much as Ac2.38.

Paul says these Gentiles by nature do the things in the law, but this work is not by the Word or the Spirit. And how is it that they come about to show the work of the law in their hearts? Is it in response to the Word or the Spirit? No, the heart has been changed by the response from another source - the conscience. These Gentiles are not born again. What is written in He 8 is of course true as applied to a born again believer but what Paul speaks of here is not from that source but from what he calls nature. The context of the passage shows it to be the conscience, not the Spirit.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Man is born spirit, soul and body. We, by the nature given to us, have something within us which "tells" us there is a God. Our spiritual nature "tells" this to us without the Word. As such, most men have a measure of faith of sorts. It is faith enough to tell them there is a God and in some to change their sinful ways. Also: the heavens declare the glory of God. Any listening to the natural world also receive faith without the Word. This kind of faith can motivate to right living but isn't covenant kind of faith. For that the Word is needed.

Truth needs no more support than for God to speak it once. When the Lord told Adam he would die if he ate the fruit he said it once and it was truth. Its generally believed that doctrine needs 2 or 3 witnesses, but if the Lord says something once, that's enough to establish it as truth, including Ro2.12-16.

Elsewhere in this tread you ask if I believe in salvation by good works. Saved by works? Last time I checked the heart and will are located somewhere in the mind of Man. The mind is a function in the brain, which functions by molecules and atoms. When any exercises their heart and will it thus is the function of these atoms and molecules. Therefore, for any to be saved by faith involves the heart and will resulting in the movements of these atoms and molecules. Is this salvation-by-the-good-works of the atoms and molecules? It appears so. Thus, all are saved by their good works when they exercise their will to get saved by faith. I trust that you believe that repentance is necessary for salvation and is also a good work.

Paul says they do by nature the things in the law. What do you say this nature is, which they have or use that causes them to do the things of the law? It appears that you would deny the possibility that a good change can occur in their heart from a response to their conscience, and that all heart-changes can only come about by the new birth. Is this your argument? Have you forgotten the times when your Dad's strong hand brought about a good change in your behaviour without the Bible? Or the times of a calamity in the church family motivated positive changes in all church families, without the Word? It is God who places the conscience in Man for a purpose and it should be allowed that the good changes from it will effect the heart, right?

So, for the sake of repeating my argument, while switching the words to the more scripturally accurate 'law', lets see what difference it would make. I had pointed out previously that Paul said twice in v14 that the Gentiles did not have the Word (Gospel) because he writes to Christians in the NT times. I'll now say that Paul points out twice that the Gentile did not have the law. If so, how then can they come to saving faith to bring about the new birth when they have no law? Where will the faith to become born again Christians come from? Does NT faith come from reading the law of the 10 Commandments which Paul says they don't have, which you say they have? Do people become born again from hearing the law of Moses or from hearing the Gospel? And you say that Paul here must refer to the law of Sinai, resulting in what you say is the works of the Spirit written in the heart, and do you now say that the law of Sinai results in the receiving of the righteousness of the Spirit, that the Sinai law brings the new birth resulting in a heart-change with the Word of God is written in the heart coming from Sinai law? Is this what you'd have us believe? If these Gentiles are born again as you say, then the law here must refer to the Word of the Gospel, for it is the Gospel and not the law which results in law being written on the heart. But these Ro2 Gentiles are without either law or Gospel. If someone has come to them with the Gospel they also certainly have the law, but Paul says they don't have the law. That effect they have in their hearts has come from following their conscience and intellect. To assume that Paul refers to these Gentiles as born again Christians, showing the work of the law of God written in the hearts by the Spirit comes from your assumption. Such assumption you've cited me of wrongly doing when I described them as unregenerate without the Word. You assume them as regenerate because they evidence changed hearts but coming about even though Paul says they're without having the law. Why do you get to make assumptions and others don't? Why do you get to read between the lines and others don't? Well, its done by you because you say the scriptures show them having this change of heart from the Spirit and you must do this assumption/reading-between-the-lines to provide the reason why they've had a change of heart because you believe it can only come from the Spirit. I invite you to expand your views of how a change of heart can come about to include ways other than the new birth alone.

Whether the word law or Word is used in understanding v14, the conclusion is the same. The Gentiles are without it. And somehow these Gentiles have produced a result in their hearts which leads to a clear conscience which gains them admittance to Heaven. How are these Gentiles-without-law any different from Gentile Enoch, who lived quite some time before Sinai? Plz don't nit-pick because I call him a Gentile. That he had no law to guide his life is evidenced by Paul in Ro5.13. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. He says there was no law. Adam and Eve had perhaps only one law - "don't eat that fruit". After they sinned, the Garden and its one law was locked up, effectively annulling this law, leaving the world without law till Sinai. What then brought the difference in Enoch? This godly man must have listened to his conscience and used his reasoning abilities to motivate him to godly living. It didn't come from law which didn't exist according to Paul. He had a testimony which granted him entrance to Heaven coming from his clear conscience, just like the Gentiles Paul refers to in Ro2. Could God justly condemn someone in the NT with a clear conscience when he didn't condemn Enoch? God's accuser would say "Foul. You can't let Enoch into Heaven on a clear conscience and exclude those Gentiles who has a clear conscience." God is just and without partiality. Perhaps it was Paul's meditations on the life of Enoch which resulted in stating the conclusions he makes in v12-16? Paul says these Gentiles are without law and they have clear consciences with a ticket to Heaven.

To be seen eager to refuse entrance to any not born again, who haven't heard the Word or the full Gospel, may deny the working of the conscience placed by God. Admittedly, there will be very few who fit in this category but they will exist. Jn3/Ac2 do not contradict Ro2 but work hand-in-hand with it. Any zeal for Jn3/Ac2 should not deny what God shows in Ro2. They are both God's declared will and in effect in this day. It says this of a certain Gentile who wasn't a Christian in Ac10.2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. What say you? Had this man died before hearing the Gospel would he have a home in Heaven or Hell? What is your judgement of him? Did he possess NT salvation? No, for the angel was sent to get him to hear the Gospel to get saved. Well then, in the ways of your thinking this righteous man was on his way to Hell. Not in my book and not in Paul's book. His conscience would testify on Judgement Day that he had lived a godly life. Did he have NT salvation before he met Peter? No, but he certainly had something from God. Plz spare me the arguments that this is a lot of hypothetical talk about Cornelius because he eventually actually got born again. Plz, just see what it is I say for what this actually portrays - Cornelius as a righteous man who needed to be born again for full NT covenant salvation.

The arguments presented in this thread against what I had written appear to think that I don't believe in Jn3/Ac2. For the record I do, that this is the Gospel which must be preached and believed and received. But I also believe in Ro2 and so should everyone else. Its in the Book as much as Ac2.38.

Paul says these Gentiles by nature do the things in the law, but this work is not by the Word or the Spirit. And how is it that they come about to show the work of the law in their hearts? Is it in response to the Word or the Spirit? No, the heart has been changed by the response from another source - the conscience. These Gentiles are not born again. What is written in He 8 is of course true as applied to a born again believer but what Paul speaks of here is not from that source but from what he calls nature. The context of the passage shows it to be the conscience, not the Spirit.

Would you agree that Psalm 19 is directed to Israel?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Man is born spirit, soul and body. We, by the nature given to us, have something within us which "tells" us there is a God. Our spiritual nature "tells" this to us without the Word. As such, most men have a measure of faith of sorts. It is faith enough to tell them there is a God and in some to change their sinful ways. Also: the heavens declare the glory of God. Any listening to the natural world also receive faith without the Word. This kind of faith can motivate to right living but isn't covenant kind of faith. For that the Word is needed.

Truth needs no more support than for God to speak it once. When the Lord told Adam he would die if he ate the fruit he said it once and it was truth. Its generally believed that doctrine needs 2 or 3 witnesses, but if the Lord says something once, that's enough to establish it as truth, including Ro2.12-16.

Elsewhere in this tread you ask if I believe in salvation by good works. Saved by works? Last time I checked the heart and will are located somewhere in the mind of Man. The mind is a function in the brain, which functions by molecules and atoms. When any exercises their heart and will it thus is the function of these atoms and molecules. Therefore, for any to be saved by faith involves the heart and will resulting in the movements of these atoms and molecules. Is this salvation-by-the-good-works of the atoms and molecules? It appears so. Thus, all are saved by their good works when they exercise their will to get saved by faith. I trust that you believe that repentance is necessary for salvation and is also a good work.

Paul says they do by nature the things in the law. What do you say this nature is, which they have or use that causes them to do the things of the law? It appears that you would deny the possibility that a good change can occur in their heart from a response to their conscience, and that all heart-changes can only come about by the new birth. Is this your argument? Have you forgotten the times when your Dad's strong hand brought about a good change in your behaviour without the Bible? Or the times of a calamity in the church family motivated positive changes in all church families, without the Word? It is God who places the conscience in Man for a purpose and it should be allowed that the good changes from it will effect the heart, right?

So, for the sake of repeating my argument, while switching the words to the more scripturally accurate 'law', lets see what difference it would make. I had pointed out previously that Paul said twice in v14 that the Gentiles did not have the Word (Gospel) because he writes to Christians in the NT times. I'll now say that Paul points out twice that the Gentile did not have the law. If so, how then can they come to saving faith to bring about the new birth when they have no law? Where will the faith to become born again Christians come from? Does NT faith come from reading the law of the 10 Commandments which Paul says they don't have, which you say they have? Do people become born again from hearing the law of Moses or from hearing the Gospel? And you say that Paul here must refer to the law of Sinai, resulting in what you say is the works of the Spirit written in the heart, and do you now say that the law of Sinai results in the receiving of the righteousness of the Spirit, that the Sinai law brings the new birth resulting in a heart-change with the Word of God is written in the heart coming from Sinai law? Is this what you'd have us believe? If these Gentiles are born again as you say, then the law here must refer to the Word of the Gospel, for it is the Gospel and not the law which results in law being written on the heart. But these Ro2 Gentiles are without either law or Gospel. If someone has come to them with the Gospel they also certainly have the law, but Paul says they don't have the law. That effect they have in their hearts has come from following their conscience and intellect. To assume that Paul refers to these Gentiles as born again Christians, showing the work of the law of God written in the hearts by the Spirit comes from your assumption. Such assumption you've cited me of wrongly doing when I described them as unregenerate without the Word. You assume them as regenerate because they evidence changed hearts but coming about even though Paul says they're without having the law. Why do you get to make assumptions and others don't? Why do you get to read between the lines and others don't? Well, its done by you because you say the scriptures show them having this change of heart from the Spirit and you must do this assumption/reading-between-the-lines to provide the reason why they've had a change of heart because you believe it can only come from the Spirit. I invite you to expand your views of how a change of heart can come about to include ways other than the new birth alone.

Whether the word law or Word is used in understanding v14, the conclusion is the same. The Gentiles are without it. And somehow these Gentiles have produced a result in their hearts which leads to a clear conscience which gains them admittance to Heaven. How are these Gentiles-without-law any different from Gentile Enoch, who lived quite some time before Sinai? Plz don't nit-pick because I call him a Gentile. That he had no law to guide his life is evidenced by Paul in Ro5.13. For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. He says there was no law. Adam and Eve had perhaps only one law - "don't eat that fruit". After they sinned, the Garden and its one law was locked up, effectively annulling this law, leaving the world without law till Sinai. What then brought the difference in Enoch? This godly man must have listened to his conscience and used his reasoning abilities to motivate him to godly living. It didn't come from law which didn't exist according to Paul. He had a testimony which granted him entrance to Heaven coming from his clear conscience, just like the Gentiles Paul refers to in Ro2. Could God justly condemn someone in the NT with a clear conscience when he didn't condemn Enoch? God's accuser would say "Foul. You can't let Enoch into Heaven on a clear conscience and exclude those Gentiles who has a clear conscience." God is just and without partiality. Perhaps it was Paul's meditations on the life of Enoch which resulted in stating the conclusions he makes in v12-16? Paul says these Gentiles are without law and they have clear consciences with a ticket to Heaven.

To be seen eager to refuse entrance to any not born again, who haven't heard the Word or the full Gospel, may deny the working of the conscience placed by God. Admittedly, there will be very few who fit in this category but they will exist. Jn3/Ac2 do not contradict Ro2 but work hand-in-hand with it. Any zeal for Jn3/Ac2 should not deny what God shows in Ro2. They are both God's declared will and in effect in this day. It says this of a certain Gentile who wasn't a Christian in Ac10.2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. What say you? Had this man died before hearing the Gospel would he have a home in Heaven or Hell? What is your judgement of him? Did he possess NT salvation? No, for the angel was sent to get him to hear the Gospel to get saved. Well then, in the ways of your thinking this righteous man was on his way to Hell. Not in my book and not in Paul's book. His conscience would testify on Judgement Day that he had lived a godly life. Did he have NT salvation before he met Peter? No, but he certainly had something from God. Plz spare me the arguments that this is a lot of hypothetical talk about Cornelius because he eventually actually got born again. Plz, just see what it is I say for what this actually portrays - Cornelius as a righteous man who needed to be born again for full NT covenant salvation.

The arguments presented in this thread against what I had written appear to think that I don't believe in Jn3/Ac2. For the record I do, that this is the Gospel which must be preached and believed and received. But I also believe in Ro2 and so should everyone else. Its in the Book as much as Ac2.38.

Paul says these Gentiles by nature do the things in the law, but this work is not by the Word or the Spirit. And how is it that they come about to show the work of the law in their hearts? Is it in response to the Word or the Spirit? No, the heart has been changed by the response from another source - the conscience. These Gentiles are not born again. What is written in He 8 is of course true as applied to a born again believer but what Paul speaks of here is not from that source but from what he calls nature. The context of the passage shows it to be the conscience, not the Spirit.

I'm not sure you are actually reading what I posted. I am definitely sure you aren't addressing the points I raised. Meanwhile, you are definitely adding things to the text (like "Paul says the righteous gentile has no Word/Gospel" etc. when that is not at all what he said.

So, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that - you believe that people can be saved by works apart from faith in Christ (you have so much as said so repeatedly), and I say that without faith one cannot please God, that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, that ALL both Jew and Gentile are convicted by God as being under sin ("there is NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE") and therefore ALL need Christ, that whoever believes in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life and whoever does NOT believe in Christ will not see life, etc. "Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God", yet you have people entering heaven and living forever... but not born again? Can you have eternal life and not be in the kingdom of God?

I honestly don't think you will get much traction with this idea.