John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Elder Esaias. I need you to fact check my research please

People on earth from creation to Noah knew who God was from Adam and Eve. So really no need to wonder if people walked by faith in God and the promised Messiah.

According to the biblical account, Adam lived to be 930 years old (Genesis 5:5). Enoch was born when Adam was 687 years old (Genesis 5:6-21), and Noah was born when Enoch was 65 years old (Genesis 5:32).

we can calculate:

- Adam lived for 243 years after Enoch's birth (930 - 687 = 243)
- Enoch lived for 365 years after Noah's birth (365 - 65 = 300)

This means:

- Enoch and Adam overlapped in life for 243 years
- Noah and Enoch overlapped in life for 300 years
- Noah and Adam overlapped in life for 243 + 300 = 543 years (since Enoch outlived Adam)

Given these overlaps, it is highly likely that:

- Enoch knew Adam
- Noah knew both Enoch and Adam

*************
Here are the covenants mentioned in the Bible, in chronological order:

1. Adamic Covenant (Genesis 1-2): God's covenant with Adam, establishing the relationship between God and humanity.
2. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 6-9): God's covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood.
3. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-21, 17:1-27): God's covenant with Abraham, promising land, descendants, and blessings.
4. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24, Deuteronomy 4-30): God's covenant with Israel, establishing the Law and the nation's relationship with God.
5. Levitic Covenant (Numbers 3:11-13, 8:1-26, 18:1-32): God's covenant with the Levites, designating them as priests and servants of the Lord.
6. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-29, 1 Chronicles 17:1-27): God's covenant with David, promising a perpetual kingdom and throne.
7. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-40, Luke 22:20, Hebrews 8:1-13):
With the house of Judah and Israel, gentiles grafted in

In each generation God has related to mankind through covenants.


So I guess the question is, what time frame would the scenario described in Romans 1 have been likely? or possible?

Oh wow, Bible Chronology, a fascinating but difficult subject! I once did a chronology study and concluded that Abraham may have known Shem personally, or at least possibly could have!

God has definitely related to mankind through covenants. What is interesting is these covenants are all made with a particular group of people, a distinct family line from Adam to Jacob and his offspring. They are all related, it's a family thing.

Now, for Romans 1, I used to think Paul was speaking about mankind in general knowing God and then apostasizing. But somebody pointed something out:

Romans 1:18 KJV
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Does the pagan heathen "hold the truth in unrighteousness"? I would say no, they don't hold the truth at all. God's truth was revealed to His people. So these people in Romans 1 are people who have the truth, but they are nevertheless unrighteous and disobedient to the truth.

Romans 1:21 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Again, these are people who "knew God". The people under discussion are those who knew God, they "held the truth". But even though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful, but they went stupid. So these are not people who "did not know God", or "did not know about God". This must then be the covenanted people, not heathen pagans or what have you.

They wind up in a reprobate state of mind, with this as the result:

Romans 1:32 KJV
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Again, they KNOW THE JUDGMENT OF GOD. Specifically, that those who commit such things are WORTHY OF DEATH. This is not pagan heathen knowledge, this is Divine Revelation via the Word of God (whether written or prophetic). So romans 1 is not describing the general state or condition of all mankind, but is describing the apostate condition of the backslidden covenant people.

Now, the discussion continues into chapter 2, and begins to be broken down into the status and condition of Jew and Greek (and Jew and Gentile). But BOTH these groups are the ones mentioned in Romans 1, for the people of Israel were to become a multitude of nations (literally, "gentiles"), and the northern House of Israel was divorced by God and declared to be "Not My People" (ie "gentiles"). Both he Jew and the Greek once had the truth, and knew God, but got caught up in idolatry and every other sin. These "Greeks" and "Gentiles" (nations) are thus proven to be Israelites of the rejected and divorced House of Israel. The "Jew" (Judean) is what was left of the house of Judah who were at the time making other errors, as Paul explains in chapter 2 (they are breaking the law and thus dishonouring God even though they rest in their possession of the law, that is to say, the Covenant with God).

So it seems to Romans 1 primarily has to do with Israelites who had the truth but apostasized. The general principle can of course be applied to the pre-Flood descendants of Adam (especially those of his son Cain), and even the post-Flood descendants of Noah, because all these people at one time did in fact know God but most of them corrupted themselves and apostasized from God. But i think the more specific application has to do with the Judean and the Greek/Gentile who at one time did know God (because they were in a covenant with God at Sinai) but who have apostasized or backslidden or been disobedient to various degrees. And thus, both Jew and Greek are under sentence of death and need Christ to atone for their sins.

Not sure if that helps any? lol

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Romans 1:21 KJV
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Again, these are people who "knew God". The people under discussion are those who knew God, they "held the truth". But even though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful, but they went stupid. So these are not people who "did not know God", or "did not know about God". This must then be the covenanted people, not heathen pagans or what have you.

Most commentators say this is speaking of the heathen philosophers who knew about God. For example:

Barnes: "When they knew God - Greek, "knowing God." That is, they had an acquaintance with the existence and many of the perfections of one God. That many of the philosophers of Greece and Rome had a knowledge of one God, there can be no doubt. This was undoubtedly the case with Pythagoras, who had traveled extensively in Egypt, and even in Palestine; and also with Plato and his disciples. ... Yet the knowledge of this great truth was not communicated to the people. It was confined to the philosophers; and not improbably one design of the mysteries celebrated throughout Greece was to keep up the knowledge of the one true God."

Benson: "The writings of Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Cicero, and other philosophers, which still remain, together with the quotations made by Just. Martyr and Clem. Alexandrinus from those which are lost, prove that the learned heathen, though ignorant of the way of salvation, were not entirely unacquainted with the unity and spirituality of God, and had pretty just notions of his perfections, of the creation and government of the world, and of the duties which men owe to God and to one another. Their sin, therefore, in worshipping idols, and in concealing the true God from the vulgar, did not proceed so much from ignorance as from corruption of heart."

Poole: "They knew God; they had a natural knowledge of God, it was taught them, as before, by the light of natnre, and by the book of the creatures. Though this was not sufficient to save them, yet it was sufficient to save them without excuse."

And many other such like examples can be brought forth showing the general tenor of thought. But is this idea correct? What does Paul say?

1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The commentators go on about how the eminent philosophers supposedly knew God. Not enough to save them, of course, but enough to make them without excuse. Yet Paul specifically says that the world did not know God, and in fact it did not know God even though it had all its wisdom (philosophy). Paul specifically refutes the idea that the heathen philosophers actually knew God. He certainly did recognise on occassion when the heathen philosophers made statements that corresponded with certain Truths revealed to man from God, but he was adamant that the world's philosophies ("sophia, wisdom") did NOT lead them to know God.

So when the same apostle says "Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not" etc, in order to be consistent, and to allow Paul to not be contradicting himself, he must not be talking about the heathen philosophies or speculations about God. Rather, he must be talking about people who actually knew God, which means the covenant people.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So when the same apostle says "Because when they knew God, they glorified Him not" etc, in order to be consistent, and to allow Paul to not be contradicting himself, he must not be talking about the heathen philosophies or speculations about God. Rather, he must be talking about people who actually knew God, which means the covenant people.

I would also point out that the "heathen philosophers" the commentators speak of, are actually "Greeks" for the most part, which as I mentioned were in fact Israelites who had been divorced by God. So, technically they "knew God", but not via all the philosophical speculations they had.

[Amanah]

Wow! Thank you.
I definitely would not have gotten there on my own.

[donfriesen1]

Post 135. Benincasa says Please by all means, explain what Jesus meant when He said “ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it.” Jesus uses the word 'enter' and 'way' for people who are on a journey with a destination goal. These are people who believe in God and recognise they are guilty and have chosen a path to follow in attempts to attain righteousness. Some ways are broad and one narrow. The broad ways are religions and philosophies of man. The narrow way is the one way God provides. 'One' refuses a choice which two or more provides. God has always provided a way -- his way -- for salvation and all others are rejected by him as part of the broadway of destruction from man-made methods. Before Dom gets excited and says that the only way God has provided is through Jesus Christ, let me say that not everyone since the Cross has heard about the way that God provides --Jesus, who is the way, the truth and the life. God has provided a way, which is also his way, for those who never get a chance to hear the gospel. All living have an inner 'voice' provided by God by which all will be judged by. The inner voice comes with being created in the image of God. Thus, God's own internal moral code is shared with Man in their nature, and there actions will be judged with the inner voice of a "law of God" of the conscience. Perhaps Dom doesn't believe in the conscience but the scriptures portray it as being used by God to judge the secrets of the hearts of all men. God is not eager to d.mn any right-living soul, nor to provide any sinner with a home in heaven, and all those who have not heard the Word will be judged rightly by the judge on that great day -- some by the Word they have heard; and those who have never heard the Word will be judged by the conscience. God will be seen to act justly in every judgment.

post 136. For my reply see post 169.

Post 145. Benincasas lumps all these people together into one big lump and assumes that I refer to the whole lump and assumes I think they are all righteous. I have not intimated any such thing. What I've said is there are some who listen to their conscience and live right by it. These are few and far between and definitely not all in Dom's lump. Someone hasn't been paying attention to what I've been saying or (hopefully not) purposely twisting what I say to mean another thing.

[donfriesen1]

post 147. Lets ask Dom Benincasa where Enoch got this great knowledge of God from. What book of God did he go to when God had not yet given a book? God had spoken to some individuals and Enoch's knowledge of this was either gained from speaking to them or having it passed by word of mouth. And what pray tell, would he have learned other than only what we today know through the Book from their stories? We can assume that A&E and Noah told Enoch the important parts, that are recorded in the Bible. But what could compel any saying they would have told more than what is recorded? If important this also would have made its way into the Ge record.

Dom says this: 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. Dom would have you think that because I believe that Enoch lived in the Age of Conscience that he was a heathen (Esaias and Dom are experts at distorting and twisting the words someone puts into print to represent them as saying something you are miles from saying. Hopefully they have more integrity than would suggest that they don't do this purposely.) and can't develope a prayer life and learn about God through answered prayer. What Dom can't prove is that Enoch studied the Bible because Paul says there was no Word to study, Ro5.13. So dear reader, what can a person learn of the ways of God through prayer alone and the few things that the few righteous who had heard from God before Enoch could have taught him? Actually quite a lot. What Enoch learned about God he learned from others interactions with God and his personal interactions with God which would also include his 'feelings' and 'sensing' about right and wrong, just like you've done in situations in your life that aren't specifically addressed in the Bible. You've searched-out with your senses what God wants you to do. There is no record that Enoch had personal communications with God like A&E or Noah. Genesis word's of Enoch don't state the words that he pleased God, as Hebrews records, and therefore the testimony comes from another non-scriptural source, though true, or is just a conclusion the writer makes on his own.

About faith. Dom would have you believe that the only source for faith is the Word of God. And where did this Word come from for Enoch when there was no book -- the words of others. Its a false notion that faith only comes from the Book. Man intuitively knows of God and faith can grow from this intuition. Paul says in Ro1 of those without excuse, that they should have known (had faith) about God's power and Godhead from creation. Faith can come from thinking about creation. God also has placed the conscience within Man to direct them to right living. Anyone listening to the conscience are listening to a God-given method of instruction and therefore exhibit a faith of sorts. Dom would have you belief that listening to the conscience is attempting to gain heaven by good works when in reality it is listening to a God-installed 'voice of God'. If anyone hasn't ever heard the Word and listens to the conscience, then they are listening to the God who placed it. If they do so when they have never heard the Word of God then they are following the only way of God known to them. That is faith of sorts and better than not having any faith when you don't have the Word.

[donfriesen1]

Post 147 Dom says Don?

You didn’t read this post.

Esaias clearly answered all your questions. Esaias refers to those who have heard the Word. My main point is those who haven't heard.

[donfriesen1]

Post 148-150 Esaias makes an interesting observation of who Ro1 refers to.

[Amanah]

Paul is not arguing for anyone to be saved without a covenant.

Paul argues that Gentiles can be considered Abraham's offspring through faith connecting them to the Abrahamic Covenant, and through Christ into the new covenant.

Romans 4:16-17 says: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Galatians 3:29 says, "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise". In this verse, Paul describes the position of his Christian readers in Galatia, and explains that belonging to Christ means being considered Abraham's offspring and heirs of God's promise to Abraham.

Paul uses the metaphor of grafting to describe how Gentiles are incorporated into the people of God, becoming part of the covenant community.

Romans 11:17-24 says:
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1615567] Post 201 Amanah says: Paul is not arguing for anyone to be saved without a covenant.

Paul argues that Gentiles can be considered Abraham's offspring through faith connecting them to the Abrahamic Covenant, and through Christ into the new covenant.

Paul argues that these gentiles of Ro2 have not the law and therefore would be without covenant. Yet Paul says these who show the work of the law written in their hearts are candidates, v15,16, for heaven because the doers of the law will be justified. This shows some going to heaven without covenant. If the defn of covenant is taken from Ge 6, which contains the first time covenant is used in the Bible, then Ge6 shows that being in covenant is accomplished when hearing God's command and doing it, as exemplified by Noah in this ch. If this definition of covenant is used then those who listen to God direction in the God-given conscience, then how are they different than others who heed God's directions? The conscience directs one from sinful actions and toward right living. These gentiles may be in covenant if being in covenant is a stickler for you to get into heaven.