John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Does the One who sacrificed much to provide salvation easily condemn those who he has had a change of attitude with through their repentance, when they're unbaptized? 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? It gave Enoch entrance. Why presume different judgment-outcomes when the different requirements of the different Ages are designed to arrive at the same point: right living? This doesn't ignore that 'living right in a Covenant' in any Age may have requirements (not demanded of those outside of a covenant). Those before the OT times lived by conscience, not covenant rules and were still Justified, right? 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? And Col 2 shows baptism as part of the NT-equivalent to circumcision, suggesting that a lack of a baptism, commanded like circumcision was, using the same reasoning, 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? Or is it both each-and-every-time? What do these Ro 2 verses, addressed to NT readers, indicate but that the Lord is ascribing 'fit-for-Heaven' for those who it should be assumed have no formal religion and no ceremonial religious acts, leaving the impression he does rely more on the effects of right-living than on ceremonial/covenantal acts when judging man's rightness. (This doesn't overlook that baptism is a righteous act and those desiring Covenant need obeisance to Covenant rules.)

The Church's only Commission is to fully proclaim the full Gospel, as per Acts 2.38. Let's all strongly say 'Amen'. But unintended obstacles are created for those not yet baptized when a righteous zeal to tout its veracity results in saying 'those not experiencing it go to hell', thus hindering their acceptance of the New Birth message by creating an effect opposite to that intended by that zeal. Because, when those not yet Born Again but repentant, hearing what to them might feel like a negating/contradiction of what they've experienced through repentance, if in their limited understanding they also are inclined to negate, they will negate, not the repentance-experience with God that touched their heart but the new-to-them words coming from the touter which appears to contradict that experience, which words they have limited understanding of. Some brashly proclaim views looking like damnation 'of the unbaptized repentant' but we rarely see the same boldness in proclaiming Ro 2, which the Lord thought worthy to be Written.

The Church must not change but fully do what it is Commissioned to do, yet not portray incompletely or distort a full NT revelation found in Ro2 by condemning-to-hell those with partial obedience to the Gospel. God commands the ceremony, expects obedience, but partial obedience is not disobedience until it is intentional, right? How is it determined if this is true or false when intentional partial obedience is disobedience? To answer: Is Peter described as disobedient when not obeying the command to preach to the Gentiles till coerced in Ac 10, many years after Pentecost, though he had been told to do so, long before? It looks like the Lord forced Peter into obedience (by showing the Sheet Vision, yet not once but 3 times, then also adding other prods) though previously commanded; he who had long-held wrong unclean Gentile attitudes (Gal 2) and hesitancies (perhaps because of it), being negligent to obey in spite of the previous commands. Fit-for-hell-disobedient? None would think to say so. Isn't this then showing a difference between willful and negligent disobedience? King Saul was willful; Peter was negligent. Are there wrong attitudes like Peter's in present day Apostolics which need to be forced out, such as the damning of the unbaptized repentant? Yes.

The 'partial obedience is not disobedience' statement could/should be compared with what the earthly Justice System says to be true: 'Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when disobeying the law. You could/should have known'. Does God similarly judge, rigidly by the Letter of the Law because the Book has been published, and then say, 'You'll fry. Too bad for you that you didn't see that remission part'? 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?

King David didn't die for the murder of Uriah, though Law/the Letter, according to some, demanded it. Some dare to question God when he didn't implement the death penalty here. This seems to show God's judging of things doesn't follow a rigid seemingly-limited interpretation of the Written that some hold. Some excuse this irregularity of not-going-by-the-Book by saying God judged by a higher law, Mercy. But does God have two sets of Law to pick-and-choose from as he pleases? The Lord oversees the interpretation/application of any given Law, at times giving guidance for its application with examples, as in David's experience. Could he also similarly guide in other circumstances? Is this the role of Ro 2, to show the error of the rigidity which some take in the application of the Remission Law as is wrongly thought in a rigid application of the Capital Punishment Law? But should all murderers receive mercy? Should all receive no mercy? Judges are to judge within the circumstances of each case. Should all the unbaptized repentants be described as disobedient when at least some could be described as negligent? Those who paint condemnation with broad strokes by damning all unbaptized repentants because they don't have remission, are wrongly selective in what they want to emphasize, showing us what? Not the whole counsel of God.

God cannot and will not go back on Jn 3.5. The 'Only Repentant' will not be considered as Born Again, fail to enter the Kingdom Covenant, and will not receive Heaven's Rewards reserved for the Church, but rewarded otherwise (less?). He gave his all, wanting all to receive full rewards, but disappointed, settling for less when necessary, but not sending-to-Hell right-living man. Those hearing and rejecting the full Gospel will face the Judge to explain why his will was rejected. What would their conscience say on That Day? What mercy can be expected for willful disobedience? Whatever he would judge, we aren't told but we rest knowing God will judge right.

I'm human. I have limited understanding. I may have left something out. I've exposed my thoughts for examination. If I'm in error, I want to know it.

[Amanah]

At the Exodus, the blood was on the doorposts, the Egyptians were drowned in the sea, and the pillar of fire lead them through the wilderness

At the tabernacle in the wilderness, the blood was shed on the altar, the blood was in the brazen laver where the priest washed, and the blood, was carried to and covered the mercy seat where the Spirit of God met them.

On the day of Pentecost Peter told them to repent and be baptized, and then receive the Spirit.

The blood, the water, and the Spirit, these three agree in one.

[Amanah]

Romans chapter two follows the pattern

*Repentance
*Spiritual circumcision (baptism) Col 2:11-12
*And the law written on your heart (Holy Spirit) Heb 8:8-12

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The blood, the water, and the Spirit, these three agree in one.

Yes this is absolutely true for someone in a covenant situation, which comes to people by the Word. But how would someone who is far from ever hearing the Word or a preacher ever hear about these 3? Yet Paul says that these who never hear the Word, by responding to their consciences about sin and living right, are considered as fit for heaven, apparently without the blood, water, Spirit of the covenant. They are rewarded in heaven but not with covenant rewards. You seem to miss the point of what I had written. Perhaps I need to re-write or perhaps a re-read would be in order.

You say Ro2 follows the pattern but quote nothing from Ro2 to support this statement, quoting from elsewhere instead. I'd be interested to see any Ro2 reference or something which relates directly to someone who hasn't heard the Word, which is what Paul refers to.

[Amanah]

Paul wrote Romans to the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome. His purpose was to unite the Jewish and gentile Christians of Rome in the gospel.

Romans 2:4 - God's kindness leads us to repentance. Jew and Gentile alike.

Romans 2:15 - the gentile Christians have God's law written on their hearts by the infilling of the Spirit. Hebrews 8:10

Romans 2:29 - the gentile Christians have the spiritual circumcision of baptism. Col 2:11-12

The new covenant is for Jews and Gentiles alike.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

King David didn't die for the murder of Uriah, though Law/the Letter, according to some, demanded it. Some dare to question God when he didn't implement the death penalty here. This seems to show God's judging of things doesn't follow a rigid seemingly-limited interpretation of the Written that some hold. Some excuse this irregularity of not-going-by-the-Book by saying God judged by a higher law, Mercy. But does God have two sets of Law to pick-and-choose from as he pleases?

The law says this:

Deuteronomy 17:6-7 KJV
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. [7] The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

David could not have been put to death lawfully without two or more witnesses to a violation of the law of God worthy of the death penalty. David ordered Uriiah to the battle, the command was lawful, there was nothing illegal about it. He also ordered a military action that resulted in Uriah's death. Technically, this was also lawful in the strict sense of the legalities of what a king may order his soldiers to do. Obviously, all of it was UNLAWFUL because it all stemmed from David's violation of the 10th Commandment prohibiting the coveting of one's neighbor's wife. Yet, there could not lawfully be any public execution and sentencing of David for his crime because there simply weren't any qualified witnesses to a crime who could testify to it.

The same situation is observed in Cain's case. He certainly killed Abel in malice, and was guilty of murder. Yet where are the witnesses? There were none except for God. Therefore, nobody could execute judgment upon Cain LAWFULLY. So in allowing Cain to live, and in allowing David to live, God was not following "two different sets of laws" but was instead upholding His one divine Law.

Now some may, as you pointed out, feel that God is being partial. After all, He struck Onan dead by an immediate divine judgment, bypassing any need for human execution of law. Yet, God sees EVERY trespass committed by EVERYONE, and yet the vast majority of people are not struck dead by a bolt of lightning or suffer some other Providential calamity. Why? Because God's personal judgment of sin is declared to be reserved for the Day of Judgment. Thus sinners "get away with" stuff all day long, though their damnation slumbereth not and in due time they will fall. And yet on the other hand God clearly orders Providential events and even divine interventions to, at times, provide immediate relief to the aggrieved justice of His moral law. How is God justified in such cases? Because in such cases there are in fact two witnesses - the sinner's own conscience and God. Further, a temporal judgment does not always imply eternal judgment, for Providence has been known to take away the righteous as well as the wicked, though their eternal fates are clearly going to be different.

In any event, the case of David, as with Cain and indeed with the woman caught in adultery whom Jesus refused to condemn, are all examples where God's law was in fact being upheld. God's law requires two or more eyewitnesses to a capital offense in order to rightly pronounce sentence, and those cases did not meet the requirement of the law. Therefore, in those instances, the guilty person was not sentenced.

[Esaias]

Also, there is an underlying a priori presumption here, that "salvation involves going to heaven and damnation involves going to hell". What is being presumed is that the soul is inherently immortal, that the divinely desired destiny of man is heaven, that the divinely ordained punishment for sin is eternity in hell, and that the purpose of God in giving mankind the Gospel is to rescue all souls from hell and deposit them in heaven.

But ALL of that is presumed, and I would suggest is in fact not taught by the Scripture. As a result, the doctrinal positions that are based on such presumptions are in error to one degree or another, and need to be re-examined. I would submit to you that the Bible actually teaches that humans are NOT immortal, that immortality is strictly limited as a gift to the believers, that the destiny of the "saved" is not heaven but the earth.

And I sense another presupposition. It is hard to put into words, because nobody who has it ever actually states it. But it is very near the idea that somehow God OWES salvation to people. "If God sends someone to hell because they weren't (fill in the blank) then how can He be just? Especially if they never heard of (whatever fill the blank)?" Nobody says God owes anybody anything yet they actually seem to think He does, for they feel He would be UNJUST in "denying heaven" to certain persons who failed to meet certain requirements. But is it not true that EVERYONE IS ALREADY under sentence of death to begin with? That to withhold a PARDON to the convicted criminal is no injustice whatsoever? Are criminals OWED a pardon? OF course not. So there would be no injustice whatsoever in God withholding eternal life from anyone at any time under any circumstances EXCEPT in violation of His own stated conditions by which He has bound Himself.

Please contemplate that last bolded statement carefully, it will greatly inform the reader how best to approach the subject.

[Esaias]

Moving from the other thread to here to consolidate the discussion:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

As to those not Born Again from the NT Period, Romans 2 says "12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 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, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.​"

Paul here says some right-acting Gentiles, not knowing the religion of the Law, presumably then also not ever hearing of the religion of the New Birth, the NT not yet written, are judged as Justified (this is implied, not stated).

I think you have misinterpreted (or misapplied) this passage in Romans to unregenerate persons. Paul speaks of these gentiles as "showing the work of the law written in their hearts". The Bible identifies the writing of the law in the heart as a key element of the new covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31-33 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Hebrews 8:6-10 KJV
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. [8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The old covenant did not produce a people that bore the fruits of righteousness, reflecting God's moral character in their lives. The new covenant was established to remedy that problem, to produce obedience, to produce a people who did in fact reflect the character of our Father:

Romans 8:3-7 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So then when Paul speaks of the uncircumcised actually doing the things contained in the law, thus showing the "work of the law written in their hearts", these must of necessity be regenerated persons, people in the new covenant, who have experienced the writing of God's law in the heart by the Spirit of God, even though they are not physically circumcised.

So it seems the context of Paul's words is those who are in the new covenant, that the uncircumcised (gentile Christian) would be justified rather than the circumcised (Jewish non-christian), that the disobedient but circumcised Jew would fare worse than the obedient but uncircumcised Christian.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God, either does not write their name in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world in his foreknowledge Mt 25.34* Rev 17.8* (If in foreknowledge the names aren't written, the place must be in Heaven, because the earth is 'not yet', nor has the sinner's heart yet been created); or instead, their written names are blotted.

Here is another example where a Scriptural doctrine is being misinterpreted. I don't really fault you, because this error is rampant within the religion calling itself "Christianity", although it is not taught by the apostles and thus is not part of the real apostolic faith.

It concerns the use of the term "foreknowledge". You are basically saying God has foreknowledge in eternity past, before the creation of anything, as to who is and who is not in the Book of Life. But notice the following:

1. Matthew 25:34 does not say this nor imply this. It says that the kingdom is from the foundation of the world, that the righteous are to enter the kingdom prepared for them "from the foundation of the world". This simply means that from the foundation of the world God had a kingdom prepared for the righteous, NOT that God foreknew who exactly and specifically the righteous would be, nor that any of them would specifically and individually make it to that kingdom.

2. Foreknowledge, as used by Scripture, specifically the apostle Paul, does not have regard to "God knowing in eternity past who specifically and individually would be saved and who not." Rather, it has regard to God's prior ordained destiny for Israel, that they would enter the new covenant:

Romans 8:28-30 KJV
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Here, those who are foreknown, are predestinated to be saved Christians. Who then are those whom God foreknew?

Romans 11:1-4 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. [2] God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, [3] Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. [4] But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

It is Israel which was foreknown of God. It is therefore Israel which is predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. These are they whom are said to be not only predestinated but called and glorified. As here:

Romans 9:1-5 KJV
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, [2] That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. [3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: [4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; [5] Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The adoption to God through Christ pertains to Israelites. The glorification through Christ pertains to Israelites. The covenants - PLURAL, both old and new - pertain to Israelites. the service of God and the promises pertain to Israelites. Why? Because Israel is the people "foreknown" of God, who are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. NONE of this has to do with any particular person's personal, individual, destiny "predetermined in advance by God before the creation of anything".

God's foreknowledge (in this context), and the doctrine of predestination, has to do with the NATIONAL STATUS and POSITION of the descendants of Jacob, that they are the people foreknown of God, they are the people predestinated as a people to become Christians, to enter the new covenant under Christ, to be glorified with Christ, to be adopted as children of God through Christ, etc. The new covenant was made with "the House of Judah and the House of Israel". Christ said "I am not come but for the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Predestination and foreknowledge are not about individual personal destinies, but the corporate destiny of Israel.

God has always had a Book of Life. In every age, in every generation, people are either in that Book (they are faithful to God) or not. Abraham's children are written in the Book by virtue of being children of Abraham, because they are part of the Covenant God made with Abraham. BUT they are "blotted out" if they are not faithful. One cannot be "blotted out" of a book they are not previously written in. Christians who are in the Book can be blotted out of the Book if they are not faithful. Why? Because the Book of Life is the record of those in covenant with God, which means Israel and those joined to Israel via the New Covenant.

[Amanah]

Thanks for clarification Bro Esaias!