John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

The words describing me as a legalist as believing in salvation by good works are said, not because they can demonstrate that I believe this as a matter of my faith but are done only to discredit the Ro2 arguments I've made, stretching my statements to an extreme conclusion which they say I believe, when I do not.

When the phrase salvation by faith is used we summarize the many words of the Bible speaks on this subject into one neat little phrase. Any one studying the Bible realizes there is a little more to the salvation story than being saved by faith alone. When the phrase 'salvation by faith' is used it doesn't include the larger story behind the phrase, which is the Pharisaic efforts common in Jesus day which were done to earn salvation. The Jewish faith was originally given by God to Moses as a means for all the Jews to attain to a level of a righteous standing with God. If not so then their good works in following it was a wasted God-given religion. This is the purpose of religion, to join God and man together in peace. The essential elements of doing their original religion in such a way to bring them righteousness had been lost in the Pharisaic methods of attempting to gain it by good works without the faith elemants which the true Jewish religion was supposed to bring. We certainly believe today that men like Moses and David received righteousness by their practise of the Jewish religion. What these two had was missing in a religion of attaining it by keeping sets of rules that the Pharisies maintaned. It was a system which the Pharisses said would bring righteousness apart from a relationship with God that men like Moses and David had in their practse of the Jews religion. It was based on doing works to gain points with God.

Christians today may say that salvation comes by faith alone, implying that no good works are needed. I once talked to someone who was so hyped up on this 'faith alone' idea that he said it wasn't even necessary to repent! And then we also have silly people saying that if you believe in saving baptism for remission of sin that you believe in salvation by good works. But, having said that, we are all saved by good works whether we admit it or not. 1) As explained earlier, post 48, faith is an exercise of the will which requires the operation of the brain's atoms and molecules. Their movements thus are good works. 2) Salvation involves repentance, a) which involves turning from sin (action word, therefore a good work). b) restitution for wrongs done to others, if necessary and applicable. Also good works. 3) water baptism. Also a work which requires actions on our part and the preacher. 4) Speaking in tongues as initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. This requires movement of the lips, tongue, vocal cords, lungs. These are good works. 5) Living a life free from sin, separated unto God's glory by good works which he has ordained we should walk in. These are good works. End of examples of salvation by good works. Let us Apostolics stop kidding ourselves that we are saved without good works. Grace is a gift which is freely offered without any merit on our part bringing it to us, but grace must be received. Received is an action word - good works. God's grace isn't irresistable and given to us whether we want it or not. It isn't forced on us and it thus requires our cooperation to receive it. Cooperation is an action word - good works.

The Gospel/epistle writers had their roots in Judaism, except for Luke, who may be a Gentile. In the back of their minds is that constant nagging legalism of the law they were joined to previous to becoming born again. It is my opinion, whenever they speak of salvation by faith they are always speaking comparatively in the back of their minds, faith-salvation is always contrasted with the salvation they thought they had in keeping the law alone. Saving faith is not something which works outside of any action on our part. It is irretractably linked with our good works. If you wish to call what has been described above as salvation by good works then knock yourself out. I'll call it for what it is - salvation by faith/obedience to the Gospel. If you wish to call me a legalist that is your privilege but is certainly not what I believe nor wish to be seen as portraying in Ro2.

What is done in any saying my describing these Gentiles as being saved by good works is it ignores the reality that all men have faith of sorts, either through an intuitive perception that the universe didn't come by itself or an internal soul-perception that God is. Some have faith from God's Word. Some don't have the Bible but that doesn't ever mean they are completely devoid of some faith. That there is some form of religion alive-and-well the world-over testifies that most Men have this inner faith that there is a God which compels them to make a religion. Those that wish to describe me as a legalist or believing in salvation by good works alone purposely ignore the fact that I've stated things like this before. They have an unhealthy desire for me to be shown as a legalist, shown as one believing in good-works-salvation even though I've stated previously contrarily. Why they go to these lengths to discredit me as a legalist and ignoring the contrary facts of what I had previously stated is for them to disclose. That this is being done by them speaks to something of an unhealthy attitude on their part. What's the unspoken agenda that requires this ignoring?

[donfriesen1]

Ro2.14 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) Paul says in v14 that these have no law. Plz explain, for all the readers, how it is that these who have no law attain to saving NT faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word.

Some have said that these must-be-born-again because they show the work of the law in their hearts, which they say can only come by the Spirit in those who are born again. They've said this, right? I will contend that if these who are born again as they say, that those who had preached the new birth to these Gentiles, that any who had preached to them the Gospel of the new birth, these also must also have had the law. Which NT preacher doesn't also have the law? All do. Therefore, because they say these are born again they then must also have the law. Surely all would agree that those who preach the Gospel also have the law. Would any deny this? Yet some do. And Paul clearly says these don't have the law, twice. If any insist on contradicting Paul by saying they have the law (and the Gospel) then I will continue to insist on agreeing with Paul. These Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 do not have the law. How is it that they can have faith to be born again apart from the law and the Gospel? These therefore must also not be born again and their heart changes have come through other means.

Also, by saying that these can only show the work of the law in their heart because they experience the new birth, they deny that any changes in the heart can come by any other means. Does the Holy Ghost produce changes in our heart? Of course. Does faith come from the Word of God. Of course it does. God has many tools to use and isn't limited to only use these.

These without having the law or the Gospel have changes in their heart, showing the work of the law, their consciences bearing witness. These changes come by what Paul calls nature; not law, not Gospel. Many arguments refuse to give an explanation how it is that nature produces this heart change. I have not refused to give an explanation how. Agree and don't contradict Paul who says 1) that these have not the law, and 2) that the changes in their heart come by nature and not the Word. Read the text of the Word in Ro2 and agree with Paul in what he plainly says.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

That is a good relevant question; and hard to answer in a few words. Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God? Or is it here: Love God, that is the great commandment, and your neighbour as yourself? Perhaps, in the context of this Ro2 discussion, it would be best to let the scripture define it. Paul describes a right-living man as one who shows the work of the law written on his heart. Come judgement day this right-living man has a heart and conscience which doesn't condemn him. Your turn. How would you describe a right-living man?

[donfriesen1]

As stated earlier in the thread so succinctly, post 22, God owes us nothing beyond what he himself has stated he will do. My hat is off to whoever for those well-spoken words. But while God is in no legal obligation to let anyone in, he certainly isn't at all eager to keep anyone out. I'd like to think that if the Lord would bend the rules that it would be in favour of letting more in, rather than keeping them out. He has gone to such great lengths to provide a means where all can make it in, to heaven. What some assert omits the fact that God places the conscience and gives the intellect to discern right from wrong for a reason - to turn man from sin. All those in the Age of Conscience had no other guides than these. Why not let them do the work God created them for, and enjoy the results coming by their use? It almost appears that some would rather see more staying out of heaven than coming in by a clean conscience. But I needle those, when I don't think their desires are truly like this.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by 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).

I agree

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.

We must believe both Ro2 and Ro3 statements as true at the same time. Paul says they have no law but says they have clear consciences. Obviously God did a work in their heart apart from the law, else how would their consciences be clear? How is it that this nature produces a heart that shows the work of the law, yet they don't have the law? What do you answer this question with? To my mind they are responding to their conscience and it is this that shows they keep the law by naturewithout having the law. But obviously not partakers of grace for they have not heard the law nor the Gospel. All those who have the Gospel also have the law, but Paul says theses Ro2 don't have the law. Therefore they don't have the Gospel nor the grace that comes thereby. To think that only the Jew with the law could be forgiven in the OT, and any Gentile repenting without hearing the law would not be forgiven would put Abraham without forgiveness because he had no law. Similarly in the NT. God can forgive someone outside of the NT, but that doesn't mean they have NT salvation. They have God's forgiving attitude but not remission in the NT understanding. NT forgiveness/remission has two separate components: God's change of attitude toward the repentant at repentance and remission (erasure from the Books of the sin debt). If not this then why the rejoicing with the angels at repentance? Why is he so happy before baptismal remission?

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). Even now in the world we live in I see the possibility that there are some few who have never heard the law or the Gospel yet live right according to the dictates of the conscience. It is these that Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16 While this is happening now in the Church Age it was also a very real possibility for some in the OT Age, that some had never heard of the 10 Commandments yet lived right by their conscience.

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.

That Enoch lived before the law almost goes without saying as obvious and wasn't outside of my understanding. Enoch and those with him are effectively the same as these Ro2 Gentiles. The both have no law and they both live by their conscience and intellect to tell them right from wrong. Therefore the comparison is apt. Because I have an agreement with my neighbour has no bearing in my relationship with any other. I may agree to cut their lawn but because I do doesn't mean that I must cut any others lawn. What binds me to them by agreement is only with them and has no effect on any other. What say you about the Gentiles during the Age of the Law. Were they bound to keep the ceremonial laws of sacrifice that the covenant bound the Jew to do? Were they sinners and judged as sinners at the White throne for not being circumcized if not circuncized? Is the ceremonial law only in effect for those in covenant or are the ceremonial laws binding on all those on the earth? To suggest that because there is a covenant in effect for some then means that everyone who isn't in the covenant is bound by the same rules seems to make covenant as something that is imposed and binding whether they want covenant or not. Is this what the Bible teaches us?

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).

Perhaps I misspoke or perhaps you've misread what I wrote. I agree with your statement. It would be unjust of God to proclaim any living by conscience in the Age of Conscience as righteous but to condemn any in any other Age if they lived right by conscience who weren't aware of any covenant that God had in effect with others. To be just and seen as just he must judge them the same, ignoring any covenant rules they aren't aware of.

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.

Yes, but what of those who have never heard of Jesus? If these who have never heard of Jesus are living right according to the conscience how would you say God will judge them? Is God eager to condemn these with a clear conscience to hell? I think not and that God has a reward for their righteousness. This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16, the hypothetical few who have never heard.

[Amanah]

Don you get an A+ for being prolific and persistent!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The words describing me as a legalist as believing in salvation by good works are said, not because they can demonstrate that I believe this as a matter of my faith but are done only to discredit the Ro2 arguments I've made, stretching my statements to an extreme conclusion which they say I believe, when I do not.

...

That there is some form of religion alive-and-well the world-over testifies that most Men have this inner faith that there is a God which compels them to make a religion. Those that wish to describe me as a legalist or believing in salvation by good works alone purposely ignore the fact that I've stated things like this before. They have an unhealthy desire for me to be shown as a legalist, shown as one believing in good-works-salvation even though I've stated previously contrarily. Why they go to these lengths to discredit me as a legalist and ignoring the contrary facts of what I had previously stated is for them to disclose. That this is being done by them speaks to something of an unhealthy attitude on their part. What's the unspoken agenda that requires this ignoring?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes, but what of those who have never heard of Jesus? If these who have never heard of Jesus are living right according to the conscience how would you say God will judge them? Is God eager to condemn these with a clear conscience to hell? I think not and that God has a reward for their righteousness. This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16, the hypothetical few who have never heard.

On the one hand you say people can be saved by "right-living" and "their righteousness" without faith in Jesus Christ, then when you get called out on it as legalism you say we are "stretching your words" and that you "believe no such thing". It is apparent that you do not THINK of yourself as a legalist. But that doesn't make it so.

You say people have some kind of belief "there is a God", and this qualifies as "faith" in the context of being "saved by faith". Yet the Bible says this about believing "there is a God":

James 2:19 KJV
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Just because people "believe there is a God" does NOT mean they have Biblical, saving, justifying faith.

As for people being justified by "their righteousness" (as I quoted you saying, look at it! It's right there at the top of this post, in the second quotation from you!):

Romans 10:3 KJV
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Justification and salvation ARE NOT BASED upon one's OWN righteousness.

You complain about being mislabeled as a legalist who believes in salvation by works, yet that is exactly what you promote. Sorry if the truth doesn't sit well with you, but it is the plain simple truth, based entirely upon your own statements. It is not said to "discredit" anything, it is simply pointing out your own words and the logical conclusions from those words.

I'll let whoever reads this thread decide for themselves whether or not you are promoting salvation by works and self-righteousness by "some". I do not expect you to acknowledge it, even though you previously answered "yes" to the question "are you teaching some can be saved by works" etc.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don you get an A+ for being prolific and persistent!

Thanks for your kind words. I'd like to see you take the next steps to agreeing with Paul. 1) admit that these Gentiles have a faith of a sorts, that though not coming to them by reading the Word, is nonetheless faith. 2) Agree with Paul "that they show the work of the law in their heart" coming about from what Paul calls 'nature' and not coming from that which usually is the Word if and when heard. 3) Agree with Paul that these have a conscience which doesn't condemn them on the day of Judgment. Agree that they are righteous but they haven't attained this righteousness by the means which those who have the Word usually do - obedience to the Gospel.

Plz try to get the general drift of what I say and do not become like others in this thread who seem to ignore my general drift and wish to nit-pick at minor discrepancies instead. These minor discrepancies were never intended to be known as strictly-defined detailed explanations which the nit-pickers blows up out of proportion and rants against wrongly, but should instead be taken as a general broad descriptions which are shortened versions for expediency sake.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thanks for your kind words. I'd like to see you take the next steps to agreeing with Paul. 1) admit that these Gentiles have a faith of a sorts, that though not coming to them by reading the Word, is nonetheless faith. 2) Agree with Paul "that they show the work of the law in their heart" coming about from what Paul calls 'nature' and not coming from that which usually is the Word if and when heard. 3) Agree with Paul that these have a conscience which doesn't condemn them on the day of Judgment. Agree that they are righteous but they haven't attained this righteousness by the means which those who have the Word usually do - obedience to the Gospel.

Plz try to get the general drift of what I say and do not become like others in this thread who seem to ignore my general drift and wish to nit-pick at minor discrepancies instead. These minor discrepancies were never intended to be known as strictly-defined detailed explanations which the nit-pickers blows up out of proportion and rants against wrongly, but should instead be taken as a general broad descriptions which are shortened versions for expediency sake.

Wow. Just... wow.

[Esaias]

Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; [12] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

The subject: Gentiles, non-Jews. Literal uncircumcised Gentiles.
Their condition: Without Christ (non-Christians). They are aliens (foreigners) from the commonwealth of Israel, meaning they are not recognised as God's people. They are strangers from the covenants (plural, both old and new) of promise, meaning they are neither Jews nor Christians.They have no hope, and are without God in the world.

Conclusion? Gentiles who are not Christians are not classed as God's people, are considered foreigners as far as who God recognises as His people, and HAVE NO HOPE. They are WITHOUT GOD.

They HAVE NO HOPE, regardless of what their "conscience" tells them. According to Paul, Gentiles who are not Christians are without God and have no hope. The only hope that can be had is hope in JESUS CHRIST, hope in the GOSPEL.

Therefore, there are no Gentiles who have never heard of Christ who will somehow wind up "in heaven" due to their "right living". There is no eternal life apart from Christ. Justification requires faith in Christ.