John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Part 2 -

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?

You presume an awful lot about Enoch.

Genesis 5:22-24 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: [23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: [24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Enoch walked with God, yet you seem to think he had no clue who God was, he was just some heathen who happened to "do right by his conscience"? Please, stop.

What hope have any of them to get it right enough to go to Heaven

See? You are a legalist, who thinks justification is by works instead of faith. Please listen to the Bible:

Romans 4:1-5 KJV
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [3] For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [4] Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

See? To the legalist, the one who attempts to be justified by works apart from faith, the reward is reckoned as a matter of debt, not grace. So too YOU (being a legalist) think "going to heaven" (what you imagine is the reward) is a matter of DEBT, that God OWES it to somebody. "Get it right enough to go to heaven"? Earn enough money for the taxi fare? Do enough good works to pay the ferryman to get into heaven? Legalism, justification by works, you reckon the reward as a matter of DEBT and not GRACE. Your belief is the very thing Paul was refuting.

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.

You uttered this:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

QUOTE=Amanah;1615258Are you teaching that some can be saved by works without faith?

You make a good observation which hadn't come to my mind. To give a concise answer and not avoid the question: the answer may be yes. But with explanation.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I didn't even "read between the lines" like you say you are doing with Paul. I just took you for your word, that yes, you are saying some folks can be saved by works without faith.

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.

Please, the ad hominems are unnecessary. YOU SAID YES when you were asked if some people can be saved by works without faith. Now, as to Romans 2 and the Gentiles Paul is talking about, yes they have faith, they are in the new covenant as I already proved over and over again, allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter.

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? [/COLOR]

I noticed you haven't answered several of my questions, like "Are you a Calvinist?" which was prompted by your statements about predestination and so forth. Anyway, about Cornelius:

Acts 11:13-14 KJV
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; [14] Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Clearly, Cornelius was NOT SAVED until after he heard Peter's preaching. He was going to hear words "whereby" he and his household would be "saved". Therefore, he was not "saved" until after he heard those words. Next?

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?

What is the New Covenant that Christ came to establish? What was His mission?

Luke 1:68-75 KJV
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, [69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; [70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: [71] That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; [72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; [73] The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, [74] That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, [75] In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Abraham was before the Sinaitic covenant. Christ came to fulfill the covenant with Abraham. Here it is again:

Galatians 3:6-12 KJV
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. [7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. [9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. [10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. [11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. [12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

The Bible does not speak of any "Age of Conscience". That is an invention you have imported into the discussion. You know what else the Bible DOES say, though?

Genesis 26:5 KJV
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

[Amanah]

Awesome teaching Bro Esaias!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

How would this make God appear to be, if it's proclaimed "he fries those he has a forgiving attitude toward, saying 'they won't find a place in Heaven' because they lack the paid-in-full ceremonial act of baptism"? What is indicated if it is said 'a right-living man must have the ceremonial act to get into Heaven or end up in Hell'? Does it not indicate this: it is believed that right actions, along with God's change in attitude because of them, aren't good enough to provide entrance for those in the NT Age but were sufficient for those before the NT?

Another question: Would it rightly be said that a Gentile in the OT Period, living right but uncircumcised, which was a commanded covenant sign for only the Jew, would go to Hell? No? ...suggesting that a lack of a baptism, ... doesn't necessarily destine one to Hell if they live right outside of covenant.

Is the Lord's judging of fitness-for-Heaven of a man in the NT Period seen as relying more on: a) his response to their obedience to commanded baptism; or more on: b) his response to right living via repentance?... he does rely more on the effects of right-living than on ceremonial/covenantal acts when judging man's rightness.


Doesn't Ro 2 show that God doesn't judge rigidly by the Letter, not damning those who act righteous by conscience when not knowing the Letter; ie, unbaptized?

... but not sending-to-Hell right-living man.

These, and many other similar statements found throughout this thread, all indicate to me several things.

First, that the author erroneously believes the whole purpose of things is to "get to heaven". But I have already pointed out that error, so will not belabour it.

Second, that the author's words are thoroughly imbued with the spirit of legalism. Repeatedly, and near constantly, "fitness for heaven" is predicated upon and made in reference to the idea of "right living", that is, to WORKS. The author seems fixated on the concept that one's going to heaven is based upon one's right living, one's actions, that justification is in fact based on works, that one is in fact justified by works.

Third, and following upon and in further expansion of the above second point, the author seems to believe that not only is justification based upon works, but that good works and "right living" produce an OBLIGATION on God's part to "let them into heaven." To be fair, legalism and justification by works requires the idea of moral obligation on God's part to reward the "do-gooder" with salvation. But most legalists do not have this idea in the forefront of their thinking. Yet, our author here seems to. He simply cannot accept the idea that God would be anything BUT obligated to persons who "live right".

Fourth, I notice there is a general tendency in the author's writings to downplay baptism. Referring to it repeatedly as a "ceremonial act", and attempting to contrast the little-ness of the "ceremonial act" with the grand importance and magnitude of "right living" tells me the author does not have a proper Biblical understanding of Christian baptism. Or at least is attempting to relegate baptism to a mere "religious ceremony" in order to increase the perceived relative importance of "right living". Hearing the Gospel, and responding to the Gospel in faith, seems to be viewed as "religious ceremony" of relatively little importance. Of course the author doesn't come right out and say "these things are unimportant", but apparently they aren't as important as "right living" and certainly failing to participate in these "religious ceremonies" is no bar to heaven. All of which shows an attitude that denigrates baptism, and faith in Christ, at the expense of generally "upright behaviour".

Fifth, I notice the author never actually defines this "right living" that seems to practically guarantee people a spot in heaven. No discussion is made about the place of the First and Second Commandments, or the Third or Fourth, in this talk of "right living". It is almost as if believing in God and believing in Jesus are NOT a part of "right living". Which in turn would mean being an idolater and an infidel are NOT sins, which means fitness for heaven isn't about a person's relationship to God at all, but is all about... something else? Whether or not they steal or kill? Bear false witness or commit adultery?

Sixth, and following on from the above fifth point, the author's writings seem to be very man-centered, rather than Christ-centered. As noted above, "right living" seems to be all about man's interactions with man, thus MAN is the standard by which good and evil are measured. God is in fact somewhat left out of the equation, except as the judgement day arbiter of who treated their neighbour right and who did not. I am sure the author did not INTEND for this to be the case, but that is the logical import of the author's words, and the emphases he makes, and the conclusions he draws, and the reasons he uses.

In short, the author of this thread is promoting a legalism that allows for people who have not responded to the Gospel in faith to still "enter heaven". I suspect the reason for this is not strictly theological, but possibly personal.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part 1 -



My answer is that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have the law from God,

My bad, I meant to say "Jews have the law" etc. Unfortunately, time expired and I can't edit the post.

[Esaias]

So.. speaking of ancient times...

Did the ancients build with giant stones? Cut with incredible precision and moved who knows how?

Or did they use geopolymers? Cast in place?

There is a guy on youtube who spent like a year or something exploring Malta. He found evidence the ancient ruins were built with geopolymer of some kind. He found the various indications of how they were cast and poured in place, the iron sheets used for forms, etc. Also found the so-called "catacombs" and "burial tombs" that were designed with doors that locked from the inside, as well as the evidence that the tourist bureau was keeping people away from the interesting areas and using modern concrete, plaster, cement, and bricks to wall off, seal up, and cover lots and lots of evidence that things were not built the way they tell us they were. He also has explored across Britain finding similar things. Interesting stuff.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So.. speaking of ancient times...

Did the ancients build with giant stones? Cut with incredible precision and moved who knows how?

Or did they use geopolymers? Cast in place?

There is a guy on youtube who spent like a year or something exploring Malta. He found evidence the ancient ruins were built with geopolymer of some kind. He found the various indications of how they were cast and poured in place, the iron sheets used for forms, etc. Also found the so-called "catacombs" and "burial tombs" that were designed with doors that locked from the inside, as well as the evidence that the tourist bureau was keeping people away from the interesting areas and using modern concrete, plaster, cement, and bricks to wall off, seal up, and cover lots and lots of evidence that things were not built the way they tell us they were. He also has explored across Britain finding similar things. Interesting stuff.

Göbekli Tepe is the oldest known ancient city. They are building on top of some of its sights. Then charging $1,200 for a two day tour from Istanbul.

Here is a video from YouTubes explaining what is happening.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Excuse me, donfriesen1 could you explain for me what is a "right-living" man?

[donfriesen1]

For the record, contrary to what others on this thread have insinuated. See I'm capitalizing and underlining for emphasis so you may never have any doubts as to where I stand. I BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY FAITH IN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS, THE LAMB OF GOD. MAN CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FROM THEIR SIN BY THEIR OWN GOOD WORKS APART FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR MAN BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAN MUST BE BORN AGAIN, BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR REMISSION OF SIN AND FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD EVIDENCED BY SPEAKING IN TONGUES. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE HOLY GHOST INSPIRED WORD OF GOD GIVEN FOR MAN'S SALVATION AND EDIFICATION. Reading carefully the things I have written in this thread will reveal the truth of what I believe and not what some would say I believe.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

For the record, contrary to what others on this thread have insinuated. See I'm capitalizing and underlining for emphasis so you may never have any doubts as to where I stand. I BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY FAITH IN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS, THE LAMB OF GOD. MAN CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FROM THEIR SIN BY THEIR OWN GOOD WORKS APART FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR MAN BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAN MUST BE BORN AGAIN, BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR REMISSION OF SIN AND FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD EVIDENCED BY SPEAKING IN TONGUES. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE HOLY GHOST INSPIRED WORD OF GOD GIVEN FOR MAN'S SALVATION AND EDIFICATION. Reading carefully the things I have written in this thread will reveal the truth of what I believe and not what some would say I believe.

Then why all the back and forth with you explicitly saying people can be saved (and indeed WILL be saved) while having no faith in Christ? You never explained (though it was brought up to you several times) how simply having a "conscience" and "right-living" will get people into heaven apart from faith in Christ?

Your statement here - "Would it rightly be said that a Gentile in the OT Period, living right but uncircumcised, which was a commanded covenant sign for only the Jew, would go to Hell? No? ...suggesting that a lack of a baptism, ... doesn't necessarily destine one to Hell if they live right outside of covenant." - is directly opposed to what you capitalized and underlined above. Everybody here seems to be understanding you the same way. Quite simply, all we have to go on is what you have posted. There is no other way to take your words. Words have meaning. Your words have meaning. The meaning of your words is contrary to the Bible doctrine of justification by grace and faith. I'm sorry if everything you have been saying was meant to convey the opposite idea. Perhaps you should have said the opposite of what you said, so we could get the true meaning of what you meant?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Excuse me, donfriesen1 could you explain for me what is a "right-living" man?

Don, could you please answer this?