John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It is my hope that some will believe that Ro2 does not contradict Jn3/Ac2. Not all men want to receive the truth but some will.

None of us think that Romans 2 contradicts John 3 or Acts 2. But, in YOUR scheme of interpretation, you have Romans 2 contradicting pretty much everything else in the entire Bible regarding grace and faith vs law and works. You have already said you agree that some folks are saved by works apart from faith, and that God will be pleased with some folks even though they have no faith.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1615344]Posted by donfriesen1:
"What say you? What does Paul mean when he refers to nature, Ro2.14 ? It is not the natural world he refers to, and if not this then what is it he means? Esaias didn't respond to this question. Will you?"

Okay, even if you interpret your way, the conclusion still is that all have sinned and can only be justified by grace through the blood. Except for the fact that these who don't have the Word, yet still show the work of the law in their hearts. They had sinned but now attempt to live right. Does a just God condemn these? v13 doers of the law will be justified Justified - just as if I'd never sinned. Funny how these without the law are seen as just but you want to send them to hell. That which shows in their heart is seen by God. Does he ignore it and send them to hell though justified? A just God does not in those who are justified by their actions responding to their conscience. I wish someone besides myself would take the time to understand what Ro2.12-16 actually says.

You can't be justified by the law or by your conscious. Only by grace and through faith in His blood.This scripture in Ro2 is God telling us that there is a way for some who have not heard. Certainly those verses you quote apply most aptly to those who have heard the Gospel.

Romans 3:23-25 KJV Yes all sin. Yes, redemption in Jesus by the Gospel which these Gentiles have not heard.They live right but not by the Gospel. If they are seen as just because the work of the law shows in their hearts, (though they've had past sin, all do) is it not grace that presents them as just? Yes it is grace.

Romans 2:12-16 warns that Gentiles who sin without the law will perish without the law, while those under the law will be judged by it.
Verdict is still "guilty" all have sinned. True.

Scripture shows that sin is the transgression of the law and also says that where there is no law there is no transgression, Ro4.15. The reason why the sin of the pre-law times (Age of Conscience) wasn't imputed to them, Ro5.13, was because they had no law. That is how Paul describes these Gentiles in Ro2. They have no law. People prior to the giving of the law were deemed as sinners even though they they had no law. What??? How could they be sinners, transgressors of the law, when there is not yet any law? They sin against something, but it isn't law. What is it they sin against if it isn't law? Paul refers to this in Ro4.14 who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Adam sinned against a law. These sin without law but not like Adam, who had a law. Their sin was so severe that God brings the Flood, but doesn't impute their sin to their account because 'where there is no law there is no transgression'. They are guilty but not of breaking the law because law is not yet given. How do you explain this sin/guilt when there is no law? Were they dead in sin? Yes but not sin against law. The only sin they are guilty of is sin against the rational understanding of right and wrong. Their intellect and conscience tells them when something is right or wrong. When someone deceives us we are angered because we feel wronged when we are sinned against. People felt the same way in the times before the giving of any law. Their intellect and conscience, not law, told them it was sinful to deceive. The opposite of do is not doing. The opposite of sin is not sinning. How does a person with only a conscience as a guide reverse the effects of sin. They stop doing what they know by nature, not law, to be wrong. How does God feel about someone who's had a change of heart about conscience-sin? He's happy with their faith. In the time before law these people have no verbal/written instruction to shed blood because they have no law, perhaps having only the memory of the Lord's act of example of shedding of Blood in the Garden. Blood sacrifices are done by many but not by command. These show a faith in the Lord's example but not by law. To say these in Ro2 have made a blood sacrifice would be to make a huge assumption but there is a small possiblity it is true in some. They will be judged on the Great Day by the only law they have - the law of their conscience. Enoch pleased God with the only faith he had, the faith in the intellect and conscience which was God-given, so much so that God took him. Enoch had no law.


The nature that Paul refers to in v14 is that which God gives everyone, the intellect and conscience, and is that which is faith-active in their life in these in Ro2 who have no law. Scriptures are brought up by others, in this thread, which apply good and well to those who have heard the Gospel but don't apply to someone who has no law nor heard the Gospel. It is the power of God to those who hear it and all would do good to receive it, when so warned. The conscience, and intellect about right and wrong, are the only law in these who have not heard. If they respond to their conscience and turn from sin how would a just God judge them? Plz don't quote a scripture to their situation which applies to those who have heard the Gospel. Their heart and actions tell God they are trying to live right. Does a just God condemn to hell someone who is trying to live right? I think not. He would have to also condemn men like Enoch who are no different than these Gentiles in Ro2. Surely you must agree that these who are without the Gospel but attempting to live right aren't destined to hell? What kind of a God is portrayed if he uses this kind of judgement? Don't confuse this situation with many people who hear the Gospel, refuse it but attempt to live right by their own means. These are self-righteous, condemned, and that is an entirely different situation than what Paul describes here. Better to see God as just and giving these a home in Heaven even though they are without the new birth.

Those scriptures you quote are all good and should be applied to those who have heard the Gospel, v24 in Ro3. The vast majority will be judged by the law and the Gospel, damned as willfully sinning after hearing it but there will be a few who will be judged by conscience, not having heard it. God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you ........ me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. These few in Ro2 show the work of the law in their heart even though they don't have the law because they do it by conscience/intellect

Scripture also says that sin is the transgression of the law and also says that where there is no law there is no transgression, Ro4.15. The reason why the sin of the pre-law times (Age of Conscience) wasn't imputed to them, Ro5.13, was because they had no law. That is how Paul describes these Gentiles in Ro2. They have no law. People prior to the giving of the law were deemed as sinners even though they they had no law. What??? How could they be sinners, transgressors of the law, when there is not yet any law? They sin against something, but it isn't law. What is it they sin against if it isn't law? Paul refers to this in Ro4.14 who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Adam sinned against a law. These sin without law but not like Adam, who had a law. Their sin was so severe that God brings the Flood, but doesn't impute their sin to their account because 'where there is no law there is no transgression'. They are guilty but not of breaking the law because law is not yet given. How do you explain this sin when there is no law? Were they dead in sin? Yes but not sin against law. The only sin they are guilty of is sin against the rational understanding of right and wrong. Their intellect and conscience tells them when something is right or wrong. When someone deceives us we are angered because we feel wronged when we are sinned against. People felt the same way in the times before the giving of any law. Their intellect and conscience, not law, told them it was sinful to deceive. The opposite of do is not doing. The opposite of sin is not sinning. How does a person with only a conscience as a guide reverse the effects of sin. They stop doing what they know by nature, not law, to be wrong. How does God feel about someone who's had a change of heart about conscience-sin? He's happy with their faith. In the time before law these people have no verbal/written instruction to shed blood because they have no law, perhaps having only the memory of the Lord's act of example of shedding of Blood in the Garden. Blood sacrifices are done by many but not by command. These show a faith in the Lord's example but not by law. To say these in Ro2 have made a blood sacrifice would be to make a huge assumption but there is a small possiblity it is true in some. They will be judged on the Great Day by the only law they have - the law of their conscience. Enoch pleased God with the only faith he had, the faith in the intellect and conscience which was God-given, so much so that God took him. Enoch had no law.


The nature that Paul refers to in v14 is that which God gives everyone, the intellect and conscience, and it that which is faith-active in their life in these in Ro2 who have no law. Scriptures are brought up by others, in this thread, which apply good to those who have heard the Gospel but don't apply to someone who has no law nor heard the Gospel. It is the power of God to those who hear it and all would do good to receive it, when so warned. The conscience, and intellect about right and wrong, are the only law in these who have not heard. If they respond to their conscience and turn from sin how would a just God judge them? Plz don't quote a scripture to their situation which applies to those who have heard the Gospel. Their heart and actions tell God they are trying to live right. Does a just God condemn to hell someone who is trying to live right? I think not. He would have to also condemn men like Enoch who are no different than these Gentiles in Ro2. Surely you must agree that these who are without the Gospel but attempting to live right aren't destined to hell? What kind of a God is portrayed if he uses this kind of judgement? Don't confuse this situation with many people who hear the Gospel, refuse it but attempt to live right by their own means. These are self-righteous, condemned, and that is an entirely different situation than what Paul describes here. Better to see God as just and giving these here a home in Heaven even though they are without the new birth.

Those scriptures you quote are all good and should be applied to those who have heard the Gospel, v24 in Ro3. The vast majority will be judged by the law and the Gospel, damned if willfully sinning after hearing it but there will be a few who will be judged by conscience, not having heard it. God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you judge me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. These few in Ro2 show the work of the law in their heart even though they don't have the law because they do it by conscience/intellect law.

[Amanah]

Dear Brother Donfriesen1, I appreciate your response but feel that you don't understand the argument Paul is making.

In Romans chapters 1-3, the Apostle Paul meticulously builds a case to demonstrate that all humanity, both Jew and Gentile, has fallen short of God's glory and is in dire need of salvation. Paul's argument is twofold: first, he establishes that sin is a universal problem that affects everyone, regardless of their religious background or moral standing (Romans 1:18-3:20). Second, he shows that God's righteousness cannot be attained through human effort or religious observance, but only through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice (Romans 3:21-31).

Paul begins by exposing the Gentiles' sinfulness, describing how they have rejected God and indulged in idolatry and immorality (Romans 1:18-32). He then turns to the Jews, who possess the Law and boast in their religious heritage, yet fail to live up to its standards (Romans 2:1-29). By highlighting the hypocrisy and sinfulness of both groups, Paul demonstrates that all humanity has fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23).

The climax of Paul's argument comes in Romans 3:20, where he declares that "by works of the law no human being will be justified in God's sight." This statement underscores the futility of human efforts to achieve righteousness through religious observance or good deeds. Instead, Paul reveals that God's righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ's blood, which atones for sin and reconciles us to God (Romans 3:24-26).

In conclusion, Romans chapters 1-3 present a compelling case that sin is a universal problem that can only be solved through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice. Paul's message is clear: no one can be saved by their own efforts or religious background; only the grace of God, received through faith in Jesus, can restore us to a right relationship with our Creator.

[Amanah]

But, to address your last post please consider the following:

Context: The context of Romans 2 is addressing Jewish hypocrisy and the judgment of God, not the salvation of Gentiles. Paul is emphasizing that God's judgment is based on truth, not outward appearances (Romans 2:2-3).

Consistency: If Romans 2:12-16 teaches that some Gentiles can be justified by their conscience apart from the Gospel, it would contradict the clear teaching of Romans 3:23-25, which states that all have sinned and are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Imputation: Your argument relies on the idea that sin is not imputed to those who have no law (Romans 5:13). However, this verse is referring to the pre-law era, before the giving of the Mosaic Law. It does not apply to Gentiles in the New Testament era who have the law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15).

Enoch: The comparison to Enoch is misplaced, as Enoch lived before the law and was taken by God without experiencing death (Hebrews 11:5). His situation is not comparable to Gentiles in the New Testament era.

Judgment: Your argument suggests that God would be unjust to condemn those who are trying to live right according to their conscience. However, this ignores the biblical teaching that God's judgment is based on truth, not appearances (Romans 2:2-3).

Your argument ultimately relies on a flawed interpretation of Romans 2:12-16 and contradicts the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you ........ me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. [/COLOR]

This is legalism, pure and simple. It confounds grace and law, faith and works. It is justification by works as a matter of law, justice, righteousness, rather than the Bible doctrine of justification by faith as a matter of grace, mercy, and unmerited favour. It is literally asserting that entrance to heaven is a matter of justice, a matter of law, that there is some moral obligation in God to "let people in", that unless there is some egregious offense involved people automatically "have a right" as it were to eternal life.

It is the polar opposite to the apostolic, Bible doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is legalism, pure and simple. It confounds grace and law, faith and works. It is justification by works as a matter of law, justice, righteousness, rather than the Bible doctrine of justification by faith as a matter of grace, mercy, and unmerited favour. It is literally asserting that entrance to heaven is a matter of justice, a matter of law, that there is some moral obligation in God to "let people in", that unless there is some egregious offense involved people automatically "have a right" as it were to eternal life.

It is the polar opposite to the apostolic, Bible doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

To use Romans to teach saved by works is so utterly absurd that it's funny

[Amanah]

Martin Luther's rediscovery of Paul's teachings on justification by faith alone in Romans, particularly in chapters 3-5, was a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. Luther's struggles with indulgences and works-righteousness led him to Romans 1:17, where he found the phrase "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." This passage, along with others like Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1, convinced Luther that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, apart from human merit or works. This understanding sparked a theological firestorm, leading Luther to challenge Catholic doctrine and practices. His subsequent writings, such as the 95 Theses, ignited a movement that spread across Europe, shaping the Protestant Reformation and its emphasis on sola fide (faith alone) as the basis for Christian justification.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

None of us think that Romans 2 contradicts John 3 or Acts 2. But, in YOUR scheme of interpretation, you have Romans 2 contradicting pretty much everything else in the entire Bible regarding grace and faith vs law and works. You have already said you agree that some folks are saved by works apart from faith, and that God will be pleased with some folks even though they have no faith.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post It is my hope that some will believe that Ro2 does not contradict Jn3/Ac2. Not all men want to receive the truth but some will.

None of us think that Romans 2 contradicts John 3 or Acts 2. But, in YOUR scheme of interpretation, This interpretation allows Paul to be seen as saying what he means. You take the good scripture about the Gospel, which rightly is applied elsewhere which doesn't rightly apply here, in those who have never heard the Gospel, because Paul clearly says they have not the law. Any hearing the Gospel also hear the law because they have both. Come on, you've got to agree that this is true. Do you? Do those who spread the Gospel also have the law? What is your answer? you have Romans 2 contradicting pretty much everything else in the entire Bible regarding grace and faith vs law and works. I too believe in justification by faith in the Blood of Jesus for those who hear and obey the Gospel. It is not my fault that any in AFF lacks a grasp of what Paul speaks of in Ro2. The logical conclusion of what you say in your arguments is "that all those who never hear the Gospel are going to hell", in spite of the fact that there are some who live right without hearing it. It appears that you haven't grasped what I speak of. Paul shows us that some who haven't heard the law, but listening to their conscience are justified when showing the work of the law in their hearts, v13-15, the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . God sees them justified, good hearted but you say that these have faith and are born again but without hearing the law and having received grace. Please explain how faith can grow in the heart and grace received, in those who never hear the law/Gospel. Paul describes them as just-as-if-I'd-never sinned and if these plz God enough to be seen as just-without-having-the-law, who is anyone to say they have no faith. Their heart/actions show these have faith, though it can't be faith in the law nor in the Gospel because they haven't heard either. Come on over here with Paul and proclaim that some can be seen as righteous but not having heard the Word. You will be in the good company of Enoch who never heard the Word yet pleased God enough to be taken. Would you describe this man Enoch, who never had the law Ro5.13 or Gospel, as unrighteous, without faith or grace, justified by his good works apart from faith? How is Enoch different than these Gentiles in Ro2? Those that lived from Adam to Sinai had no law. How are these with Enoch to live right when they have no law guiding them? They must discern right and wrong by their intellect and conscience. What say you? How were they to discern good and evil? What hope have any of them to get it right enough to go to Heaven unless it is by their God-given abilities, the intellect and conscience, when they don't have law. Obviously, according to your judgement of things, these are living by good works and the only hope they have is to be saved by their good works. Where do they place their faith if there is no law? What is your answer? What is your take on Enoch? Compare these Ro2 Gentiles with Enoch. He is without law. They are without law. He is seen as just. They are seen as just. He isn't born again. These, because they have not the law, can't be born again. He lived by conscience. They live by conscience. If Enoch is righteous then how could these not also be seen as righteous by the same standard? Don't confuse these with any who've heard the Word or the Gospel, but don't received it. That is an entirely different subject which we no doubt will agree on.have already said you agree that some folks are saved by works apart from faith, and that God will be pleased with some folks even though they have no faith. You again put words in my mouth which I haven't uttered. Your conclusion-abilities are clouded in regard to what I've said. If you apply these same abilities to Ro2 that you apply to my words that would explain why we don't agree on Ro2. These Ro2 Gentiles clearly have faith of sorts because they show the work of the law in their hearts. To say I say they don't have faith puts words in my mouth which I never speak. Have you no other ammo to use than this? With your experience here in AFF you should be able to do better than this, unless this is a habit you use to denigrade others thoughts when you have none better to counter with.

Plz provide an answer about righteous Cornelius. You didn't answer this question, which I'll ask again, 'Would Cornelius have gone to hell had he died before meeting Peter?' Ac10.2, though he lived in the NT times? Why is it that you avoid answering the questions yet can take the time to write things which distort what I have written? Come on, use fair judgement of things, not unfair distortion.

Plz provide an explanation how those in the Age of Conscience can be seen as righteous without the Covenant of the law, yet by your interpretation of things, people can't ever be seen as righteous in the NT Age outside of the New Covenant? It would appear from the scriptures that some ( those in the Age of Conscience) can live right by their conscience. If God allows these who are outside of any covenant to be seen as righteous, then what would prevent anyone else from being seen as righteous in another Age even if there was a covenant available to partake? If God judges some just, here in Conscience, then using the same standards he would see those over there, as just, though it be in the OT or NT. Would any wanting to live God's ways not want to be part of Covenant relationship, with its greater benefits and relationship? Any would be a fool not take the better if it was available. Any would be a fool to disobey the Covenant relationship if they were knowledgeable of it because the Lord has taken great efforts to provide it. But any not ever hearing will not be judged by that which they have no knowledge of, which is what Ro2.12-16 describes. Have the ways of the Age of Conscience been rescinded? No, the same ways are still in effect in humanity and seen in that the Last Judgement shows God using the conscience to judge people. The ways of the Age of Conscience hasn't been rescinded, and when the Covenant of Law came into effect it was layered on top of the requirements of Conscience. Similarly when the Second Covenant came about, did the First evaporate completely, or is it not true that the Lord requires to live by it and above it? Isn't that what Paul says when he tells the Ro we establish the law? Ro3.31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. The ceremonial law was done away with when fulfilled by what Jesus did. The OT is layered, along with the Conscience, in the NT. They have not been rescinded.

Come on over to the Ro2 side. Its nice and comfy here in the shade of God's Word and not at all bad like you think. You'll like here.

[Amanah]

Hebrews 11

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.. For by it the elders obtained a good report

[Esaias]

Part 1 -

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

...those who have never heard the Gospel, because Paul clearly says they have not the law. Any hearing the Gospel also hear the law because they have both. Come on, you've got to agree that this is true. Do you? Do those who spread the Gospel also have the law? What is your answer?

My answer is that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have the law from God, and think they are the enlightened ones in the world, whereas the Gentiles are heathens and pagans, not circumcised, and therefore not in the Sinaitic Covenant (have not the law), and so the Jew looks down upon the Gentile. But, the Jew does not in fact do the things contained in the law, through breaking the law they dishonour God. It is not, Paul says, the "hearers of the law" who will be justified (identified as righteous), but the doers of the law. So just because Jews "have the law" doesn't in itself mean much. Meanwhile, you have Gentiles who do in fact "do the things contained in the law", even though they are uncircumcised, not in the Covenant, and thus "do not have the law" (in the sense Paul is using the phrase in the book and particularly in this chapter). Yet, Paul says their uncircumcision is irrelevant, they are considered as if they were circumcised, in Covenant with God, because "not the hearers of the law, but the DOERS of the law, shall be justified." Their actions show or demonstrate that the law has been written in their hearts, unlike the case of the disobedient Jew.

So, what does that mean? What does it mean to have the law written in the heart? This is where you go off the deep end. The Bible itself tells us the answer. The new covenant is where God writes His law in the heart. The old covenant had God writing His law on tables of stone, but the new covenant has God writing His law on the heart. Therefore, Paul is saying these Gentiles are members of the new covenant, because they have the law written in their heart, and therefore they DO the things contained in the law, unlike the disobedient Jew. That is what *I* say, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. *You* however inject your own speculations about conscience, and say the law written on the heart of these Gentiles is the conscience and its awareness of right and wrong. But you are clearly wrong, not only because the bible says no such thing whatsoever, not only because the bible identifies the law being written in the heart as the effect of the new covenant, but because in your scheme of things Jews have no conscience and heathens do! Which makes no sense.

[COLOR="black"]It is not my fault that any in AFF lacks a grasp of what Paul speaks of in Ro2. The logical conclusion of what you say in your arguments is "that all those who never hear the Gospel are going to hell", in spite of the fact that there are some who live right without hearing it. It appears that you haven't grasped what I speak of.

I HAVE grasped exactly what you speak of. I also have grasped what Paul speaks of. I just think you are completely wrong and misinterpreting Paul's words, like this:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The logical conclusion of my argument is NOT "all who never hear of the Gospel are going to hell." See? This is where I know you aren't reading what I am posting. I mentioned at the outset that your belief system begins with certain presuppositions, certain things you believe as true before you even begin to try to "interpret" Romans 2. Among these presuppositions is the idea that "salvation is about escaping hell and going to heaven". Your worldview is about "going to heaven". This presupposition is an error, it is not what the bible teaches, it is not the subject of the Bible, and because you begin with such an error your entire train of thought is bound to wind up at the wrong place, like a train placed on the wrong set of tracks going east when the passengers want to go west.

... but you say that these have faith and are born again but without hearing the law and having received grace. Please explain how faith can grow in the heart and grace received, in those who never hear the law/Gospel.

See what you did there? It's called several things, "moving the goal posts", "straw man", "red herring", and a few other things. Most noticeably it's called EISEGESIS, inserting your own words into the text and adding to the text, saying things that were never said or written or even suggested. You already admitted that's what you were doing, and said we all should do it too, which I find abhorrent and unbecoming of anyone claiming to be apostolic. Maybe you don't claim to be apostolic, so maybe it's no big deal to you. But in *my* approach, I see that Paul never said these Gentiles "never hear(d) the Gospel". That's something you made up to support your belief system. You are confounding law and Gospel, you are saying (in this example) they are one and the same. This is something all legalists do, they confound law and Gospel, so it is no surprise you are also doing the same thing. They do not have the law (they are not circumcised, they are not part of the Sinaitic Covenant) but instead they have the law written in the heart (they are circumcised IN HEART and thus are members of the new covenant). Paul specifically identifies them as the uncircumcised in flesh but circumcised in heart, which (once again) is something that only happens in Christ.

Paul describes them as just-as-if-I'd-never sinned and if these plz God enough to be seen as just-without-having-the-law, who is anyone to say they have no faith. ...Come on over here with Paul and proclaim that some can be seen as righteous but not having heard the Word.

Come over to your bizarre heresy? Are you kidding? Surely you jest. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Yet you say they have faith, without hearing anything, and without any word. Earlier you had them without faith (never heard of Jesus, etc) yet pleased God. But God says "without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God." Maybe you should come over here to the Word of God?

(continued in Part 2)