John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Amanah]

They don't have the Mosaic law of the old covenant, written in stone.

Romans 2:14-15
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Instead they have the law of the new covenant written on their hearts by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 8:8-10
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:

[Amanah]

So, about Psalm 19

Meta AI says:

Yes, there is a correlation between Psalm 19 and Romans 2 regarding the conversion of Gentile believers. Here are some connections:

- *Gentiles as true Jews*: In Romans 2:25-29, Paul argues that uncircumcised Gentiles who keep God's law are considered true Jews, while some circumcised Jews may not be. Similarly, Psalm 19 highlights God's revelation through creation and His word, which is accessible to all, including Gentiles.

- *Internal circumcision*: In Romans 2:28-29, Paul explains that true circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit. Psalm 19:14 echoes this idea, asking God to "let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight."

- *God's judgment*: Romans 2:12-16 warns that Gentiles who sin without the law will perish without the law, while those under the law will be judged by it. Psalm 19:9-11 describes God's judgments as "true and righteous altogether," implying a universal standard for all people.

- *Faith and obedience*: Both Psalm 19 and Romans 2 emphasize the importance of faith and obedience in response to God's revelation. Psalm 19:7-10 extols the perfection of God's law, while Romans 2:25-27 highlights the need for Gentiles to "fulfill the law" through faith.

While the direct connection between Psalm 19 and Romans 2 is not explicit, both passages share common themes related to Gentile conversion, such as internal circumcision, faith, obedience, and God's universal judgment. ¹

[Amanah]

Humility is the beginning of wisdom,
Pride it's downfall.

A reminder to remain teachable.
The longer we live for God the more difficult it is to remain teachable.

I quote this to myself everyday.

[Amanah]

Posted by donfriesen1:
"What say you? What does Paul mean when he refers to nature, Ro2.14 ? It is not the natural world he refers to, and if not this then what is it he means? What say you? Esaias didn't respond to this question. Will you?"


Okay, even if you interpret your way, the conclusion still is that all have sinned and can only be justified by grace through the blood.

You can't be justified by the law or by your conscious. Only by grace and through faith in His blood.

Romans 3:23-25 KJV
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Romans 2:12-16 warns that Gentiles who sin without the law will perish without the law, while those under the law will be judged by it.
Verdict is still "guilty" all have sinned.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1615344]Posted by donfriesen1:
"What say you? What does Paul mean when he refers to nature, Ro2.14 ? It is not the natural world he refers to, and if not this then what is it he means? Esaias didn't respond to this question. Will you?"

Okay, even if you interpret your way, the conclusion still is that all have sinned and can only be justified by grace through the blood. Except for the fact that these who don't have the Word, yet still show the work of the law in their hearts. They had sinned but now attempt to live right. Does a just God condemn these? v13 doers of the law will be justified Justified - just as if I'd never sinned. Funny how these without the law are seen as just but you want to send them to hell. That which shows in their heart is seen by God. Does he ignore it and send them to hell though justified? A just God does not in those who are justified by their actions responding to their conscience. I wish someone besides myself would take the time to understand what Ro2.12-16 actually says.

You can't be justified by the law or by your conscious. Only by grace and through faith in His blood.This scripture in Ro2 is God telling us that there is a way for some who have not heard. Certainly those verses you quote apply most aptly to those who have heard the Gospel.

Romans 3:23-25 KJV Yes all sin. Yes, redemption in Jesus by the Gospel which these Gentiles have not heard.They live right but not by the Gospel. If they are seen as just because the work of the law shows in their hearts, (though they've had past sin, all do) is it not grace that presents them as just? Yes it is grace.

Romans 2:12-16 warns that Gentiles who sin without the law will perish without the law, while those under the law will be judged by it.
Verdict is still "guilty" all have sinned. True.

Scripture shows that sin is the transgression of the law and also says that where there is no law there is no transgression, Ro4.15. The reason why the sin of the pre-law times (Age of Conscience) wasn't imputed to them, Ro5.13, was because they had no law. That is how Paul describes these Gentiles in Ro2. They have no law. People prior to the giving of the law were deemed as sinners even though they they had no law. What??? How could they be sinners, transgressors of the law, when there is not yet any law? They sin against something, but it isn't law. What is it they sin against if it isn't law? Paul refers to this in Ro4.14 who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Adam sinned against a law. These sin without law but not like Adam, who had a law. Their sin was so severe that God brings the Flood, but doesn't impute their sin to their account because 'where there is no law there is no transgression'. They are guilty but not of breaking the law because law is not yet given. How do you explain this sin/guilt when there is no law? Were they dead in sin? Yes but not sin against law. The only sin they are guilty of is sin against the rational understanding of right and wrong. Their intellect and conscience tells them when something is right or wrong. When someone deceives us we are angered because we feel wronged when we are sinned against. People felt the same way in the times before the giving of any law. Their intellect and conscience, not law, told them it was sinful to deceive. The opposite of do is not doing. The opposite of sin is not sinning. How does a person with only a conscience as a guide reverse the effects of sin. They stop doing what they know by nature, not law, to be wrong. How does God feel about someone who's had a change of heart about conscience-sin? He's happy with their faith. In the time before law these people have no verbal/written instruction to shed blood because they have no law, perhaps having only the memory of the Lord's act of example of shedding of Blood in the Garden. Blood sacrifices are done by many but not by command. These show a faith in the Lord's example but not by law. To say these in Ro2 have made a blood sacrifice would be to make a huge assumption but there is a small possiblity it is true in some. They will be judged on the Great Day by the only law they have - the law of their conscience. Enoch pleased God with the only faith he had, the faith in the intellect and conscience which was God-given, so much so that God took him. Enoch had no law.


The nature that Paul refers to in v14 is that which God gives everyone, the intellect and conscience, and is that which is faith-active in their life in these in Ro2 who have no law. Scriptures are brought up by others, in this thread, which apply good and well to those who have heard the Gospel but don't apply to someone who has no law nor heard the Gospel. It is the power of God to those who hear it and all would do good to receive it, when so warned. The conscience, and intellect about right and wrong, are the only law in these who have not heard. If they respond to their conscience and turn from sin how would a just God judge them? Plz don't quote a scripture to their situation which applies to those who have heard the Gospel. Their heart and actions tell God they are trying to live right. Does a just God condemn to hell someone who is trying to live right? I think not. He would have to also condemn men like Enoch who are no different than these Gentiles in Ro2. Surely you must agree that these who are without the Gospel but attempting to live right aren't destined to hell? What kind of a God is portrayed if he uses this kind of judgement? Don't confuse this situation with many people who hear the Gospel, refuse it but attempt to live right by their own means. These are self-righteous, condemned, and that is an entirely different situation than what Paul describes here. Better to see God as just and giving these a home in Heaven even though they are without the new birth.

Those scriptures you quote are all good and should be applied to those who have heard the Gospel, v24 in Ro3. The vast majority will be judged by the law and the Gospel, damned as willfully sinning after hearing it but there will be a few who will be judged by conscience, not having heard it. God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you ........ me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. These few in Ro2 show the work of the law in their heart even though they don't have the law because they do it by conscience/intellect

Scripture also says that sin is the transgression of the law and also says that where there is no law there is no transgression, Ro4.15. The reason why the sin of the pre-law times (Age of Conscience) wasn't imputed to them, Ro5.13, was because they had no law. That is how Paul describes these Gentiles in Ro2. They have no law. People prior to the giving of the law were deemed as sinners even though they they had no law. What??? How could they be sinners, transgressors of the law, when there is not yet any law? They sin against something, but it isn't law. What is it they sin against if it isn't law? Paul refers to this in Ro4.14 who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam. Adam sinned against a law. These sin without law but not like Adam, who had a law. Their sin was so severe that God brings the Flood, but doesn't impute their sin to their account because 'where there is no law there is no transgression'. They are guilty but not of breaking the law because law is not yet given. How do you explain this sin when there is no law? Were they dead in sin? Yes but not sin against law. The only sin they are guilty of is sin against the rational understanding of right and wrong. Their intellect and conscience tells them when something is right or wrong. When someone deceives us we are angered because we feel wronged when we are sinned against. People felt the same way in the times before the giving of any law. Their intellect and conscience, not law, told them it was sinful to deceive. The opposite of do is not doing. The opposite of sin is not sinning. How does a person with only a conscience as a guide reverse the effects of sin. They stop doing what they know by nature, not law, to be wrong. How does God feel about someone who's had a change of heart about conscience-sin? He's happy with their faith. In the time before law these people have no verbal/written instruction to shed blood because they have no law, perhaps having only the memory of the Lord's act of example of shedding of Blood in the Garden. Blood sacrifices are done by many but not by command. These show a faith in the Lord's example but not by law. To say these in Ro2 have made a blood sacrifice would be to make a huge assumption but there is a small possiblity it is true in some. They will be judged on the Great Day by the only law they have - the law of their conscience. Enoch pleased God with the only faith he had, the faith in the intellect and conscience which was God-given, so much so that God took him. Enoch had no law.


The nature that Paul refers to in v14 is that which God gives everyone, the intellect and conscience, and it that which is faith-active in their life in these in Ro2 who have no law. Scriptures are brought up by others, in this thread, which apply good to those who have heard the Gospel but don't apply to someone who has no law nor heard the Gospel. It is the power of God to those who hear it and all would do good to receive it, when so warned. The conscience, and intellect about right and wrong, are the only law in these who have not heard. If they respond to their conscience and turn from sin how would a just God judge them? Plz don't quote a scripture to their situation which applies to those who have heard the Gospel. Their heart and actions tell God they are trying to live right. Does a just God condemn to hell someone who is trying to live right? I think not. He would have to also condemn men like Enoch who are no different than these Gentiles in Ro2. Surely you must agree that these who are without the Gospel but attempting to live right aren't destined to hell? What kind of a God is portrayed if he uses this kind of judgement? Don't confuse this situation with many people who hear the Gospel, refuse it but attempt to live right by their own means. These are self-righteous, condemned, and that is an entirely different situation than what Paul describes here. Better to see God as just and giving these here a home in Heaven even though they are without the new birth.

Those scriptures you quote are all good and should be applied to those who have heard the Gospel, v24 in Ro3. The vast majority will be judged by the law and the Gospel, damned if willfully sinning after hearing it but there will be a few who will be judged by conscience, not having heard it. God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you judge me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. These few in Ro2 show the work of the law in their heart even though they don't have the law because they do it by conscience/intellect law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God will not allow himself to be seen as unjust in condemning people who want to live right. That is what Ro2.12-16 shows us. If not, then on judgement day some people will point to Enoch and say to the Lord, 'how am different from that guy? Why do you ........ me but let him into heaven? How am I not as righteous as he?' God won't let those accusations exist on the day when all are judged fairly. [/COLOR]

This is legalism, pure and simple. It confounds grace and law, faith and works. It is justification by works as a matter of law, justice, righteousness, rather than the Bible doctrine of justification by faith as a matter of grace, mercy, and unmerited favour. It is literally asserting that entrance to heaven is a matter of justice, a matter of law, that there is some moral obligation in God to "let people in", that unless there is some egregious offense involved people automatically "have a right" as it were to eternal life.

It is the polar opposite to the apostolic, Bible doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is legalism, pure and simple. It confounds grace and law, faith and works. It is justification by works as a matter of law, justice, righteousness, rather than the Bible doctrine of justification by faith as a matter of grace, mercy, and unmerited favour. It is literally asserting that entrance to heaven is a matter of justice, a matter of law, that there is some moral obligation in God to "let people in", that unless there is some egregious offense involved people automatically "have a right" as it were to eternal life.

It is the polar opposite to the apostolic, Bible doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.

To use Romans to teach saved by works is so utterly absurd that it's funny

[Amanah]

Dear Brother Donfriesen1, I appreciate your response but feel that you don't understand the argument Paul is making.

In Romans chapters 1-3, the Apostle Paul meticulously builds a case to demonstrate that all humanity, both Jew and Gentile, has fallen short of God's glory and is in dire need of salvation. Paul's argument is twofold: first, he establishes that sin is a universal problem that affects everyone, regardless of their religious background or moral standing (Romans 1:18-3:20). Second, he shows that God's righteousness cannot be attained through human effort or religious observance, but only through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice (Romans 3:21-31).

Paul begins by exposing the Gentiles' sinfulness, describing how they have rejected God and indulged in idolatry and immorality (Romans 1:18-32). He then turns to the Jews, who possess the Law and boast in their religious heritage, yet fail to live up to its standards (Romans 2:1-29). By highlighting the hypocrisy and sinfulness of both groups, Paul demonstrates that all humanity has fallen short of God's glory (Romans 3:23).

The climax of Paul's argument comes in Romans 3:20, where he declares that "by works of the law no human being will be justified in God's sight." This statement underscores the futility of human efforts to achieve righteousness through religious observance or good deeds. Instead, Paul reveals that God's righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ's blood, which atones for sin and reconciles us to God (Romans 3:24-26).

In conclusion, Romans chapters 1-3 present a compelling case that sin is a universal problem that can only be solved through faith in Jesus Christ's sacrifice. Paul's message is clear: no one can be saved by their own efforts or religious background; only the grace of God, received through faith in Jesus, can restore us to a right relationship with our Creator.

[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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

[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.