John3 and Romans2: Part2

[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 Esaias

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. Wow . Is this the best you can do? Lets examine your comparison. On one side we have demons and on the other we have some who've shown the work of the law in their hearts. That is not comparing apples with apples. A man with your experience must do better than this.

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. Nah, this is using a distortion method. I've shown these who show the work of the law in their heart as believing in God and following a God-given method -- the conscience. It fails to portray justification by good works as you attempt to twist it to mean. 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" Here is an example of distorting what someone says and avoiding the gist. etc.

Plz try again. You're a good man that can do better.

Do you aree with those who would condemn righteous Cornelius , sending him to hell, or would you agrre with Luke's assessment that he was righteous, Ac10.2?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz try again. You're a good man that can do better.

Do you aree with those who would condemn righteous Cornelius , sending him to hell, or would you agrre with Luke's assessment that he was righteous, Ac10.2?

If Cornelius NEVER accepted the Christ he would of NEVER made Heaven his home.

Don, you have zero defense for your salvation by being "right living" righteous, being a good Yeshiva student. Always kissing the mezuzah on the door post of your home will not make heaven your home. Being a righteous nice person who loves Wakan Tanka, and has never heard of the Gospel of Christ isn't saved.

You believe God is unjust because He doesn't save Borneo head hunters.

You have no understanding of the Gospel.

Don, you mentioned that you were pouring mud, and hammering nails in Canada for 50 years. How long were you in a Apostolic Pentecostal church?

Because my man, you need some Bible more than the breath of life.

[Amanah]

Martin Luther's rediscovery of Paul's teachings on justification by faith alone in Romans, particularly in chapters 3-5, was a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. Luther's struggles with indulgences and works-righteousness led him to Romans 1:17, where he found the phrase "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." This passage, along with others like Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1, convinced Luther that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, apart from human merit or works. This understanding sparked a theological firestorm, leading Luther to challenge Catholic doctrine and practices. His subsequent writings, such as the 95 Theses, ignited a movement that spread across Europe, shaping the Protestant Reformation and its emphasis on sola fide (faith alone) as the basis for Christian justification.

[Amanah]

Hebrews 11

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.. For by it the elders obtained a good report

[Esaias]

Part 1 -

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

...those who have never heard the Gospel, because Paul clearly says they have not the law. Any hearing the Gospel also hear the law because they have both. Come on, you've got to agree that this is true. Do you? Do those who spread the Gospel also have the law? What is your answer?

My answer is that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have the law from God, and think they are the enlightened ones in the world, whereas the Gentiles are heathens and pagans, not circumcised, and therefore not in the Sinaitic Covenant (have not the law), and so the Jew looks down upon the Gentile. But, the Jew does not in fact do the things contained in the law, through breaking the law they dishonour God. It is not, Paul says, the "hearers of the law" who will be justified (identified as righteous), but the doers of the law. So just because Jews "have the law" doesn't in itself mean much. Meanwhile, you have Gentiles who do in fact "do the things contained in the law", even though they are uncircumcised, not in the Covenant, and thus "do not have the law" (in the sense Paul is using the phrase in the book and particularly in this chapter). Yet, Paul says their uncircumcision is irrelevant, they are considered as if they were circumcised, in Covenant with God, because "not the hearers of the law, but the DOERS of the law, shall be justified." Their actions show or demonstrate that the law has been written in their hearts, unlike the case of the disobedient Jew.

So, what does that mean? What does it mean to have the law written in the heart? This is where you go off the deep end. The Bible itself tells us the answer. The new covenant is where God writes His law in the heart. The old covenant had God writing His law on tables of stone, but the new covenant has God writing His law on the heart. Therefore, Paul is saying these Gentiles are members of the new covenant, because they have the law written in their heart, and therefore they DO the things contained in the law, unlike the disobedient Jew. That is what *I* say, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. *You* however inject your own speculations about conscience, and say the law written on the heart of these Gentiles is the conscience and its awareness of right and wrong. But you are clearly wrong, not only because the bible says no such thing whatsoever, not only because the bible identifies the law being written in the heart as the effect of the new covenant, but because in your scheme of things Jews have no conscience and heathens do! Which makes no sense.

[COLOR="black"]It is not my fault that any in AFF lacks a grasp of what Paul speaks of in Ro2. The logical conclusion of what you say in your arguments is "that all those who never hear the Gospel are going to hell", in spite of the fact that there are some who live right without hearing it. It appears that you haven't grasped what I speak of.

I HAVE grasped exactly what you speak of. I also have grasped what Paul speaks of. I just think you are completely wrong and misinterpreting Paul's words, like this:

2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

The logical conclusion of my argument is NOT "all who never hear of the Gospel are going to hell." See? This is where I know you aren't reading what I am posting. I mentioned at the outset that your belief system begins with certain presuppositions, certain things you believe as true before you even begin to try to "interpret" Romans 2. Among these presuppositions is the idea that "salvation is about escaping hell and going to heaven". Your worldview is about "going to heaven". This presupposition is an error, it is not what the bible teaches, it is not the subject of the Bible, and because you begin with such an error your entire train of thought is bound to wind up at the wrong place, like a train placed on the wrong set of tracks going east when the passengers want to go west.

... but you say that these have faith and are born again but without hearing the law and having received grace. Please explain how faith can grow in the heart and grace received, in those who never hear the law/Gospel.

See what you did there? It's called several things, "moving the goal posts", "straw man", "red herring", and a few other things. Most noticeably it's called EISEGESIS, inserting your own words into the text and adding to the text, saying things that were never said or written or even suggested. You already admitted that's what you were doing, and said we all should do it too, which I find abhorrent and unbecoming of anyone claiming to be apostolic. Maybe you don't claim to be apostolic, so maybe it's no big deal to you. But in *my* approach, I see that Paul never said these Gentiles "never hear(d) the Gospel". That's something you made up to support your belief system. You are confounding law and Gospel, you are saying (in this example) they are one and the same. This is something all legalists do, they confound law and Gospel, so it is no surprise you are also doing the same thing. They do not have the law (they are not circumcised, they are not part of the Sinaitic Covenant) but instead they have the law written in the heart (they are circumcised IN HEART and thus are members of the new covenant). Paul specifically identifies them as the uncircumcised in flesh but circumcised in heart, which (once again) is something that only happens in Christ.

Paul describes them as just-as-if-I'd-never sinned and if these plz God enough to be seen as just-without-having-the-law, who is anyone to say they have no faith. ...Come on over here with Paul and proclaim that some can be seen as righteous but not having heard the Word.

Come over to your bizarre heresy? Are you kidding? Surely you jest. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word. Yet you say they have faith, without hearing anything, and without any word. Earlier you had them without faith (never heard of Jesus, etc) yet pleased God. But God says "without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God." Maybe you should come over here to the Word of God?

(continued in Part 2)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Part 1 -



My answer is that Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles. Gentiles have the law from God,

My bad, I meant to say "Jews have the law" etc. Unfortunately, time expired and I can't edit the post.

[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.

[Esaias]

Part 2 -

You will be in the good company of Enoch who never heard the Word yet pleased God enough to be taken. Would you describe this man Enoch, who never had the law Ro5.13 or Gospel, as unrighteous, without faith or grace, justified by his good works apart from faith?

You presume an awful lot about Enoch.

Genesis 5:22-24 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: [23] And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: [24] And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

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.

What hope have any of them to get it right enough to go to Heaven

See? You are a legalist, who thinks justification is by works instead of faith. Please listen to the Bible:

Romans 4:1-5 KJV
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. [3] For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. [4] Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

See? To the legalist, the one who attempts to be justified by works apart from faith, the reward is reckoned as a matter of debt, not grace. So too YOU (being a legalist) think "going to heaven" (what you imagine is the reward) is a matter of DEBT, that God OWES it to somebody. "Get it right enough to go to heaven"? Earn enough money for the taxi fare? Do enough good works to pay the ferryman to get into heaven? Legalism, justification by works, you reckon the reward as a matter of DEBT and not GRACE. Your belief is the very thing Paul was refuting.

have already said you agree that some folks are saved by works apart from faith, and that God will be pleased with some folks even though they have no faith. You again put words in my mouth which I haven't uttered.

You uttered this:

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

QUOTE=Amanah;1615258Are you teaching that some can be saved by works without faith?

You make a good observation which hadn't come to my mind. To give a concise answer and not avoid the question: the answer may be yes. But with explanation.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I didn't even "read between the lines" like you say you are doing with Paul. I just took you for your word, that yes, you are saying some folks can be saved by works without faith.

These Ro2 Gentiles clearly have faith of sorts because they show the work of the law in their hearts. To say I say they don't have faith puts words in my mouth which I never speak. Have you no other ammo to use than this? With your experience here in AFF you should be able to do better than this, unless this is a habit you use to denigrade others thoughts when you have none better to counter with.

Please, the ad hominems are unnecessary. YOU SAID YES when you were asked if some people can be saved by works without faith. Now, as to Romans 2 and the Gentiles Paul is talking about, yes they have faith, they are in the new covenant as I already proved over and over again, allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter.

Plz provide an answer about righteous Cornelius. You didn't answer this question, which I'll ask again, 'Would Cornelius have gone to hell had he died before meeting Peter?' Ac10.2, though he lived in the NT times? [/COLOR]

I noticed you haven't answered several of my questions, like "Are you a Calvinist?" which was prompted by your statements about predestination and so forth. Anyway, about Cornelius:

Acts 11:13-14 KJV
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; [14] Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

Clearly, Cornelius was NOT SAVED until after he heard Peter's preaching. He was going to hear words "whereby" he and his household would be "saved". Therefore, he was not "saved" until after he heard those words. Next?

Plz provide an explanation how those in the Age of Conscience can be seen as righteous without the Covenant of the law, yet by your interpretation of things, people can't ever be seen as righteous in the NT Age outside of the New Covenant?

What is the New Covenant that Christ came to establish? What was His mission?

Luke 1:68-75 KJV
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, [69] And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; [70] As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: [71] That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; [72] To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; [73] The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, [74] That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, [75] In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

Abraham was before the Sinaitic covenant. Christ came to fulfill the covenant with Abraham. Here it is again:

Galatians 3:6-12 KJV
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. [7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. [8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. [9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. [10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. [11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. [12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

The Bible does not speak of any "Age of Conscience". That is an invention you have imported into the discussion. You know what else the Bible DOES say, though?

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

[donfriesen1]

For the record, contrary to what others on this thread have insinuated. See I'm capitalizing and underlining for emphasis so you may never have any doubts as to where I stand. I BELIEVE IN SALVATION BY FAITH IN THE SHED BLOOD OF JESUS, THE LAMB OF GOD. MAN CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED FROM THEIR SIN BY THEIR OWN GOOD WORKS APART FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR MAN BY THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. IN ORDER TO BE PART OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAN MUST BE BORN AGAIN, BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR REMISSION OF SIN AND FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT OF GOD EVIDENCED BY SPEAKING IN TONGUES. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE TO BE THE HOLY GHOST INSPIRED WORD OF GOD GIVEN FOR MAN'S SALVATION AND EDIFICATION. Reading carefully the things I have written in this thread will reveal the truth of what I believe and not what some would say I believe.