[donfriesen1]

A king comes to town where people are afflicted with scurvy. If you work in my fields I'll give you fruit: apples, oranges and bananas. Sign-up at the table. Everyone who signs up will get a stamp on their hand and get some fruit at the end of the day and get to live in my mansion and drive my limo. Some sign-up and work in the fields. A man who was out of town when the King came, comes back to town. Seeing the town folk working in the fields he starts working too but doesn't ever find out about the stamp. At the end of the day people line up for their apples, oranges, bananas and so does the man without the stamp. The King sees this man without the stamp. What will the kind and just king do with the one who never got the stamp? Will he send him packing, judge him as a unfit scoundrel? I saw you in the fields the King says. I'll give you just oranges even though you haven't got the stamp. The King honours his labours even though the man who was travelling hasn't entered into an agreement. He gets to move into the mansion but doesn't get to drive the limo, like people with the stamp do. [Before you jump all over me accusing me of portraying salvation by good works by this illustration, plz just take the illustration's main points for what they are worth. But I'm afraid that won't happen. Some people enter into an agreement. Some don't get the chance and don't get the benefits which the good King wanted to share with everyone.] How does the agreement the King makes with one affect any other person? It doesn't. Its just between them and the King, and all others are outside of their relationship/agreement rules. That some have an agreement doesn't prevent the King's relationship with those not having an agreement. See Mt 20.1-14, 15, 16. He will do what is right in all his relationships, those with or without an agreement, when he is a just King.

The way you'all describe NT salvation is, a person can't get any rewards at all from God unless they enter into a covenant relationship with him. No agreement - then no rewards at all, period. Do I understand you'all correctly in this? The way you describe it, because God provides and desires all to enter into covenant, that if any doesn't enter that covenant then God is going to cut- off from any rewards any who are living right without an agreement. Does God want all to enter into the agreement? Yes, of course, that is his perfect will, that all enter into agreement and get full rewards, but when that doesn't happen that doesn't prevent his kindness in those who haven't ever heard that an agreement is possible. God does not punish those who don't have an agreement by denying them any reward for right living. To contend so would make the Lord appear as unjust if it is said he sends to hell those who fail to enter into the agreement. Will someone who hears about the agreement, but refuses to enter it even though they now know about it, will they get rewarded? How could they when they've purposely rejected the Lord's will when they say they obey it? But because some reject God's will and some don't, doesn't mean that God will not show kindness to those who've never heard but are living right. As much as we'd like to think that everyone has heard the Gospel, in spite of the proliferation of its communication today, there are some who haven't heard, few though they may be. That is what Paul addresses in Ro2.12-16. The few who have never heard.

The way righteous Cornelius, Ac10.2, is condemned by your theology when it condemns him while he is living righteous, it distorts the justice of God. That's not my Jesus you're describing and you make-up another Jesus by it. Stop it already. Jesus said make right judgment of things.

Jesus certainly wants to see every last person born again, by faith and not good works alone. But not every last person has the opportunity to hear the Gospel. This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16. In spite of the proliferation of verses which appear to be to the contrary because they apply to those who have heard, Paul would say these do not apply because they have never heard. Those who have not heard are not judged the same as those who have, inspite of the verses which say all are quilty of sin. By 'nature' changes occur in their heart which results in them showing the work of the law in their heart. This speaks of righteousness, right? And that coming about by that which you'll call good works. Abraham believed the voice of God. These believe another type of voice, the conscience and it produces the same effect that Abraham had. Obedience. As a sign to his faith he is circumcized. The way you'all describe salvation by faith, Abrahams works of circumcism are good works for salvation. Those who obey God's voice of conscience obey as Abraham did with good works, but these are just a sign of the inner workings of God in the heart. Its not too late to change your theology to accomodate what God would like to do in the heart by conscience. The way you'll all describe it conscience doesn't exist and the only means of effecting righteousness is the Gospel. Sorry, you're too late. The effect of the conscience has been around a lot longer than the Gospel.

Many have heard of a concept in law which is called precedence. Current judges rule today by the precedence that previous rulings have shown. God has set precedence by first ruling in the Age of Conscience by conscience, when there was no law. To be seen as fair and just, the precedence set by his previous righteousness and omniscience using the conscience then, must be adhered to in all other cases coming afterward. Because he was right by the perfection of his Being, in the first judgments, he must continue to use these same standards or be seen as contradicting himself. Can God contradict himself and show himself wrong? I think not. By your theological methods you prevent this, saying God has changed his mind about using the conscience, when most Christians believe the conscience will be examined at the White Throne. By your theology you state the only standard used is the new birth. You make God to be someone who would send right living people to hell. But you've dug yourself in deep and will not likely have the abilities to change your theology to accomodate its place in what God intended when he first thought up its concept. In stead you will get technically precise by quoting scriptures which apply to those who have heard and miss the boat about the conscience. Get on Paul's boat. He believes on both. But instead you will continue to discredit the main points I've made by deflecting thought to minor details which can be twisted to say almost anything.