John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1615247]Now, it seems to me the real intent of the thread is to address the attitude that some (many?) have towards other professing Christians who have not yet come more fully into the "truth". The question is raised about the repentant but unbaptised person, "should they be told they are still going to split hell wide open unless they get baptised in Jesus' name?"

Yes, you've got it right. Its about attitude. But there may be more to this. Plz allow me to think out loud as I write. I say that because the thoughts are underdeveloped; I haven't put enough time into it to come to any firm conclusions.

First, let it be said that I believe in Jn 3.5 and Ac2.38 as necessary for those wanting 100%. Is there a place in God's world where he can accept those who give 95%? Or said another way, is it 100% with God or you go to hell? Very few of us will admit to giving 100% and do we condemn ourselves by admitting it. Admittedly, this argument confuses 2 different topics; obedience to the salvation message and the obedience to total committment. They are separate things.

Second, NT salvation is about Covenant. Is there a place in God's world where relationships exist without covenant? The time from Adam to Sinai was a time without law and isn't some law a necessary component of any covenant? Of that 2500 year period we know of no general law nor general covenant requirement. (Noah had covenant, but perhaps only a personal not on a group level as shown with Israel and the Church. Abraham also had covenant.) Of the many people in this time who are righteous, Enoch being one, can it be said to be without covenant? God is in some sort of relationship with everyone he has created but many without covenant. If it can be said of these, then what is to prevent any from saying that a person today can not be viewed righteous outside of covenant. Saying it another way: should we be eager to condemn anyone who hasn't entered covenant while still making efforts to share the full gospel with these? Having a less condemning attitude absolves no Apostolic of the responsibility of sharing the whole Word of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

First, let it be said that I believe in Jn 3.5 and Ac2.38 as necessary for those wanting 100%. Is there a place in God's world where he can accept those who give 95%? Or said another way, is it 100% with God or you go to hell?

Reminds me of a song:

[donfriesen1]

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law. Some call this time the Age of Conscience because of there being no law. Does the Bible call it an Age of Conscience? No. People do. A man who started 2 Bible schools and Pastored in both foreign and domestic churches, starting multiple churches during his ministry may be qualified enough to use this term. It may not be good enough for any other to use, but I'll accept his estimation, along with others, on whether it is appropriate or not.

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time? This is an important question because it is in the Age of Conscience that God judges the world for sin, by the Flood. Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world. Sin is usually defined as breaking the law. How can Paul say that there was no law but in the same breath say that they are breaking the law. There must have been another standard for determining sin, of determining right and wrong. Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie. This feeling, in those who don't read the Bible, comes from the conscience God placed in Man, and also from our intellect. (Nit-pickers will say we shouldn't live by our feelings. And nit-pickers will also say we should use our feelings because that is how we descern what is going on in the world around us.) When someone lies to us we are bothered by it. We feel wronged when lied to and our intellect/reasoning tells us if we feel wronged when lied to, then it is wrong to lie to anyone else because they may feel wronged. Conscience is the standard-maker-for-sin in the time when Paul says there was no law. If not this then what?

Also, we are made in the image of God. God has a built-in standard of right and wrong that is within him. (The nit-picker will say that God has no 'internal'.) In eternity he has no Book like the Bible for standards of right and wrong. He is the standard. If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong? Logic and faith in what God's Word tells us about the image of God would make this true. When God created Adam and Eve they were given perhaps one law, don't eat that fruit, and the means for the determining of right and wrong was from within them, their conscience and intellect. It was the sin-determiner till the giving of the Law at Sinai. Enoch lived by his conscience and intellect. While not specifically mentioned in an earlier post (because his fame is so great it needed no mention), it is well-known by me and most of the Christian world, without mention, that he pleased God, that God took him. Christians believe he went to heaven without seeing death. If Enoch doesn't have the Word of God to give him faith to live right because law didn't exist, then what is the source of his faith? It has got to come from somewhere, but it doesn't come from a non-extant Word or Law. (The nit-picker will say that the Word of God is forever settled in Heaven, therefore exists eternally.) Where does your reasoning ability say Enoch's faith comes from? Mine tells me that it comes from his conscience and intellect because, apart from divine revelation, what other source could it be? There is no law. Enoch certainly had faith but didn't have faith in the Word of God because it was not yet given. Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law.

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

Abraham knew and kept the commandments, statutes, and laws of God, long before Mt Sinai. I wonder where he got any of that information?

Some call this time the Age of Conscience because of there being no law. Does the Bible call it an Age of Conscience? No. People do. A man who started 2 Bible schools and Pastored in both foreign and domestic churches, starting multiple churches during his ministry may be qualified enough to use this term. It may not be good enough for any other to use, but I'll accept his estimation, along with others, on whether it is appropriate or not.

A fallacious appeal to authority (man-made at that).

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time?

Genesis 5:22 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

What does it mean to "walk with God"?

Genesis 6:9 KJV
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 17:1 KJV
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 KJV
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, [13] To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

So Enoch knew God and was obedient and faithful to Him. Notice this too:

Hebrews 11:5 KJV
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

From the very next verse:

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Enoch, and everybody else mentioned in the 11th chapter of Hebrews, had faith in the true God, walked in faith with God, and were obedient to His Revelation to them. They weren't just "following the dictates of their conscience", they were prophets, the people of God, who had direct contact with God via Divine Revelation, and were faithful to Him.

Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world.

Actually, Paul did NOT say "there is no law". He said sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Then he goes on about how everybody in that era sinned. The conclusion is that there was indeed law in that era, because otherwise nobody would have been guilty of sin!

Romans 5:12 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death passed upon all men because all have sinned. But if sin was not being imputed to them, then they would not have been under sentence of death. Thus proving there was, in fact, law. Was it the Sinaitic Covenant? No, of course not. But God's moral law (which was later codified in the Sinaitic Covenant) was clearly in operation. Otherwise there would have been no righteous basis for God punishing anybody at anytime prior to Sinai.

If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong?

There is in men something called the conscience, which is the faculty or ability of recognising right from wrong. It is not the "standard" (that doesn't even make any rational sense). It is the ability to RECOGNISE the standard, which is God's eternal moral law.

Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

Paul says they have not the law, whereas the Jew does. He further explains what he means by having the law, it means being a member of the Sinaitic Covenant, and having the codified law instituted as a social contract ("law of the land"). The Gentiles he speaks of however, do in fact the things contained in the law, they actually perform the things commanded by the law, unlike the Jew who although having the law nevertheless does not actually perform it. So, he says, these Gentiles show the WORK of the law written in the heart. The law of God has been codified in their heart, whereas the Jew has not the law of God codified or written in the heart. Therefore the Gentile has the righteousness of the law fulfilled in him, whereas the Jew does not.

Since there has been a WORK of the law written in the heart, it follows that something happened to cause God's law to be written in their heart. What is that? According to Paul, and according to Jeremiah, it is the effect of the NEW COVENANT.

More importantly, Paul identifies these Gentiles as having an inward spiritual heart circumcision:

Romans 2:25-29 KJV
For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [26] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

These Gentiles he speaks of are Jews "inwardly", who although uncircumcised in flesh are counted as being circumcised (in Covenant with God) because they are circumcised in heart and spirit.

Who is "circumcised in heart"? Heathens who have a vague sense of right and wrong? No. CHRISTIANS:

Colossians 2:8-13 KJV
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: [12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. [13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Philippians 3:3 KJV
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Therefore, the gentiles mentioned in Romans 2 who demonstrate the work of the law written in their heart, who are inwardly "Jews", who are inwardly circumcised, who are circumcised in the heart, spiritually, must of necessity be Christians.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I reduced your Bible quotes to fit 12,000 and for some reason the system has eliminated your quotes of my previous comments. Oh, well.
Genesis 26:5 KJV
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Abraham knew...where he got any of that information?Quote:
Some call this time the Age of Conscience because of there being no law. Does the Bible call it an Age of Conscience? No. People do. A man who started 2 Bible schools and Pastored in both foreign and domestic churches, starting multiple churches during his ministry may be qualified enough to use this term. It may not be good enough for any other to use, but I'll accept his estimation, along with others, on whether it is appropriate or not.
A fallacious appeal to authority (man-made at that).Why do you waste time making points like these?

Genesis 5:22 KJV
And Enoch walked with God

What does it mean to "walk with God"? You make a good point here. What do people do in the absense of details. We make assumptions based on available knowledge, but are assumptions. Clearly the Law was given much later; to Moses, and Paul says that there was no law before this. I prefer to rely on these facts more heavily though I know quite well that the 'walk' that is here, is similar to that seen in later examples as a result of, in many instances, from walking with the Word. That there are later similar examples of walking withe the Word is not evidence that any in the age of Conscience did though similar in appearance, because it results in contradicting known facts. It is most logical to agree with known facts in this instance, even while logical to wrongly assume they had law.

Genesis 6:9 KJV
Noah walked with God.

Noah walked in what God told him.[INDENT]Genesis 17:1 KJV
Abraham walked in what God told him. [/COLOR]

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 KJV
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee...?

Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

So Enoch knew God and was obedient and faithful to Him. Notice this too:

Hebrews 11:5 KJV
By faith Enoch was translated...he pleased God[/B].

Hebrews 11:6 KJV
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Enoch, and everybody else mentioned in the 11th chapter of Hebrews, had faith in the true God, walked in faith with God, and were obedient to His Revelation to them. They weren't just "following the dictates of their conscience", they were prophets, the people of God, who had direct contact with God via Divine Revelation, and were faithful to Him.

True, errr...mostly I agree. Did your mother ever preach to you about living right. Does that make her a prophet? Many Mom's who don't have the Word preach to their kids . What you describe here does not give concrete evidence that they had the Word. To say they do contradicts Paul, Ro5.13. Why do you wish to be seen contradicting Paul?

Actually, Paul did NOT say "there is no law". He said sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Then he goes on about how everybody in that era sinned. The conclusion is that there was indeed law in that era, because otherwise nobody would have been guilty of sin!
Wow. Are we getting technical and picky about words here, or what. It appears you plainly contradict Paul when he plainly says there was no law. We know the Law came by Moses. And you're up to your old tricks to discredit someone when you have an agenda. I clearlly addressed how sin was in the world without law in my post but you use tricks like this to attempt to show that I hadn't. You may be only fooling yourself. You've got it in you to do better than this. But if you keep this up you'll end up discouraging commenters from wanting to make there points.

Romans 5:12 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death passed upon all men because all have sinned. But if sin was not being imputed to them, then they would not have been under sentence of death. Thus proving there was, in fact, law. Was it the Sinaitic Covenant? No, of course not. But God's moral law (which was later codified in the Sinaitic Covenant) was clearly in operation. Otherwise there would have been no righteous basis for God punishing anybody at anytime prior to Sinai.

In Adam all die. It is in the genes, in our nature. Should a baby die before birth or in early infancy does your theology condemn such a one to hell becuse they aren't born again, or does another aspect of theology kick in and allow them entrance to heaven? Paul's, and mine would say this one would go to heaven not hell. Yours condemns them because they weren't born again, right? Or do I misinterpret your theology and distort it like you do the Word when you leave portions out, like what Paul says in Ro2.12-16? Do babies who aren't born again go to heaven or hell? My bet is the are judged as people who haven't heard the Word because they have never had a chance, just like the Gentiles who never got a chance to hear the Gospel but whose conscience allows them into heaven when clear. Are you ready to come over to Paul's side? Do you say Uncle?

There is in men something called the conscience, which is the faculty or ability of recognising right from wrong. It is not the "standard" (that doesn't even make any rational sense). It is the ability to RECOGNISE the standard, which is God's eternal moral law.

You again make a very good point. God's eternal moral law, you say? Are we getting away from what is written law? You may be starting to talk about what I've been talking about in a post where I've said God has an internal law which is passed to us in the image of God, which the conscience is part of. You'll now get an Amen from my corner. Keep going on this path and we'll end up meeting at the point where Paul says that a Man's clean conscience will grant him entrance to heaven when he hasn't heard about the new birth. Have my arguments been getting to you? Hallelijah! Sarcasm: don't let your friends know because they might have to change their minds too.

I'm having fun with this and glad I was able to catch up on my reading your posts.

Paul says they have not the law, whereas the Jew does. He further explains what he means by having the law, it means being a member of the Sinaitic Covenant, and having the codified law instituted as a social contract ("law of the land"). I don't think I agree with the thought that it is the Sinaic Covenant. I would describe that as including the ceremonial part. I see Paul refering to the 10 Commandments, which were given for all humanity, but also was incorporated for keeping in the Sinaic covenant. The Gentiles he speaks of however, do in fact the things contained in the law, but not the ceremonial laws of sacrificethey actually perform the things commanded by the law, unlike the Jew who although having the law nevertheless does not actually perform it. So, he says, these Gentiles show the WORK of the law written in the heart. The law of God has been codified in their heart, whereas the Jew has not the law of God codified or written in the heart. Therefore the Gentile has the righteousness of the law fulfilled in him, whereas the Jew does not.

Since there has been a WORK of the law written in the heart, it follows that something happened to cause God's law to be written in their heart. What is that? According to Paul, and according to Jeremiah, it is the effect of the NEW COVENANT.

Of course it does. No one can deny this. But to disallow that God has other tools which bring about changes in Man's behaviour says that God has limited means of accomplishing his purposes. God's infinite wisdom isn't limited to one method. To say that the new birth is the only way to effect changes in the heart limits God. Not this comedian. (Did you see what I did there? I've called my self a comedian and there will be some who will jump all over it and use it against me. Thats what they do. They pick on meaningless details, like it being unscriptural to say the time before the giving of the law wasn't called the time of Conscience, and avoid the gist of the general. Because that's what they do when they have an agenda.)

More importantly, Paul identifies these Gentiles as having an inward spiritual heart circumcision:
[INDENT]Romans 2:25-29 KJV

These Gentiles he speaks of are Jews "inwardly", who although uncircumcised in flesh are counted as being circumcised (in Covenant with God) because they are circumcised in heart and spirit.

Ro2.12-16 is separate from 25-29 for a reason. He speaks specifically about a certain group in 12-16, about some who have not heard but show the work of the law in their heart. He speaks generally about all Gentiles in 25-29. These are two separate examples though both have the word, Gentile, in common. But you knew this, right?

Who is "circumcised in heart"? Heathens who have a vague sense of right and wrong? No. CHRISTIANS: Whats done here is to cloud the issue by saying some, me, has said something when they haven't said any such thing.

Colossians 2:8-13 KJV

Amen!

Philippians 3:3 KJV

Amen!

Therefore, the gentiles mentioned in Romans 2 who demonstrate the work of the law written in their heart, who are inwardly "Jews", who are inwardly circumcised, who are circumcised in the heart, spiritually, must of necessity be Christians.

Any who have the Gospel also have the law. Any preacher of the NT also has the OT. Therefor these here cannot have the Gospel, because Paul says they don't have the law. The changes that have taken place in the heart have come by another means, which those who deny God can use other means, attribute to the only thing they want to acknowledge -- the Gospel. No none should want to deny the Gospel for that is the will of God in the church age for full NT new birth salvation by faith and grace. Paul says the thing which effects the writing/showing of the law in the hearts of the heart is 'nature'. The context of this Ro2.12-16 passage makes this nature to be the conscience, not the Word. But there will be some who won't acknowledge what Paul says, that they don't have the Word/Gospel and keep denying that God can bring about changes by other means than the new birth, because they have an agenda.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Any who have the Gospel also have the law. Any preacher of the NT also has the OT. Therefor these here cannot have the Gospel, because Paul says they don't have the law. The changes that have taken place in the heart have come by another means, which those who deny God can use other means, attribute to the only thing they want to acknowledge -- the Gospel. No none should want to deny the Gospel for that is the will of God in the church age for full NT new birth salvation by faith and grace. Paul says the thing which effects the writing/showing of the law in the hearts of the heart is 'nature'. The context of this Ro2.12-16 passage makes this nature to be the conscience, not the Word. But there will be some who won't acknowledge what Paul says, that they don't have the Word/Gospel and keep denying that God can bring about changes by other means than the new birth, because they have an agenda.

Don, it looks like we can stick a fork in this, because it’s about done. You are throughly a smoked anchovy. There’s no discussion here. You are Biblically incoherent when it comes to this subject. Church age? Now that’s something that would be like drilling a nerve in a tooth then pouring ice cold water on it. Talking to you on your thoughts concerning End Times. Not that I would want to do that. You can’t even hold a conversation concerning soteriology let alone eschatology.
I just noticed this thread says Part2? Who were the poor souls that had to suffer you in Part 1? Hey, Don? Do you think you could make your posts just a little longer? How about making all the font lime green?

Anyway where did you attend church?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ro5.13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world.

Actually, Paul did NOT say "there is no law". Yes he did. Read it. He said sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Then he goes on about how everybody in that era sinned. The conclusion is that there was indeed law in that era, because otherwise nobody would have been guilty of sin!

Romans 5:12 KJV
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death passed upon all men because all have sinned. But if sin was not being imputed to them, then they would not have been under sentence of death. Thus proving there was, in fact, law. Was it the Sinaitic Covenant? No, of course not. But God's moral law (which was later codified in the Sinaitic Covenant) was clearly in operation. Well, well, well. That is pretty much what I have been saying, now isn't it, but using different words. Esaias calls it God's moral law and says this wasn't the Sinai law. I, instead of calling it 'God's moral law, I give it another label, 'Conscience'. But you Esaias keep saying we don't agree and clearly here it is, we agree. But watch this ladies and gentlemen, Esaias will reply to this post and will say that we don't agree on anything. Otherwise there would have been no righteous basis for God punishing anybody at anytime prior to Sinai And so, although he won't admit to it, Esaias is saying that God sent the Flood to judge humanity because it was their conscience that condemned them (his word is God's moral law, which hadn't been written nor spoken because we have no record of it, testified to by Paul who says this Ro5.13 by saying no law). Would it not be possible, if the conscience condemns someone, that the same conscience can clear someone? Of course. But you won't hear Esaias admitting to this, because his rigid theology says that only the gospel can condemn or clear someone. And the sin that brought the Flood was the violation of what the conscience told them was wrong, the sin against conscience brought spiritual death to all in Adam. .

.

[donfriesen1]

Paul talks about sin not imputed, Ro5.13. And what good reason is it that sin is not imputed to those who do sin? Paul says it is because they have no law. God does not judge those who have no law as if they did. Can it not also then be said, if we use the same principle, that any never hearing the Gospel do not get judged as if they did? And if someone lives right, only by the conscience because they have never heard of the law or the gospel, that the measure used to judge them either just or d.mned, will be that which God places in every Man when he makes Man in his image, the 'internal moral law of God', called the conscience? This is what Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie.

Says who?

I've met plenty of people who didn't feel at all "bad" about lying. Plenty of people who think lying is perfectly okay to get what they want.

Where is this idea coming from that "EVERYBODY feels it is wrong to lie"?

And even if they did, what of the other commandments? Like "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy"? Or "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them"? Does everybody "feel" such things are wrong? Seriously?

A lot of people have a normalcy bias where they think everyone around them is basically like they are. This is how people get mugged or taken advantage of, ripped off, and even killed, because they think some other person is basically "just like them". Not realising that it is unwise to measure people by other people (including yourself):

2 Corinthians 10:12 KJV
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.