John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

None of us think that Romans 2 contradicts John 3 or Acts 2. But, in YOUR scheme of interpretation, you have Romans 2 contradicting pretty much everything else in the entire Bible regarding grace and faith vs law and works. You 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.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post It is my hope that some will believe that Ro2 does not contradict Jn3/Ac2. Not all men want to receive the truth but some will.

None of us think that Romans 2 contradicts John 3 or Acts 2. But, in YOUR scheme of interpretation, This interpretation allows Paul to be seen as saying what he means. You take the good scripture about the Gospel, which rightly is applied elsewhere which doesn't rightly apply here, in 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? you have Romans 2 contradicting pretty much everything else in the entire Bible regarding grace and faith vs law and works. I too believe in justification by faith in the Blood of Jesus for those who hear and obey the Gospel. 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. Paul shows us that some who haven't heard the law, but listening to their conscience are justified when showing the work of the law in their hearts, v13-15, the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness . God sees them justified, good hearted 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. 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. Their heart/actions show these have faith, though it can't be faith in the law nor in the Gospel because they haven't heard either. Come on over here with Paul and proclaim that some can be seen as righteous but not having heard the Word. 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? How is Enoch different than these Gentiles in Ro2? Those that lived from Adam to Sinai had no law. How are these with Enoch to live right when they have no law guiding them? They must discern right and wrong by their intellect and conscience. What say you? How were they to discern good and evil? What hope have any of them to get it right enough to go to Heaven unless it is by their God-given abilities, the intellect and conscience, when they don't have law. Obviously, according to your judgement of things, these are living by good works and the only hope they have is to be saved by their good works. Where do they place their faith if there is no law? What is your answer? What is your take on Enoch? Compare these Ro2 Gentiles with Enoch. He is without law. They are without law. He is seen as just. They are seen as just. He isn't born again. These, because they have not the law, can't be born again. He lived by conscience. They live by conscience. If Enoch is righteous then how could these not also be seen as righteous by the same standard? Don't confuse these with any who've heard the Word or the Gospel, but don't received it. That is an entirely different subject which we no doubt will agree on.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. Your conclusion-abilities are clouded in regard to what I've said. If you apply these same abilities to Ro2 that you apply to my words that would explain why we don't agree on Ro2. 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.

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? Why is it that you avoid answering the questions yet can take the time to write things which distort what I have written? Come on, use fair judgement of things, not unfair distortion.

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? It would appear from the scriptures that some ( those in the Age of Conscience) can live right by their conscience. If God allows these who are outside of any covenant to be seen as righteous, then what would prevent anyone else from being seen as righteous in another Age even if there was a covenant available to partake? If God judges some just, here in Conscience, then using the same standards he would see those over there, as just, though it be in the OT or NT. Would any wanting to live God's ways not want to be part of Covenant relationship, with its greater benefits and relationship? Any would be a fool not take the better if it was available. Any would be a fool to disobey the Covenant relationship if they were knowledgeable of it because the Lord has taken great efforts to provide it. But any not ever hearing will not be judged by that which they have no knowledge of, which is what Ro2.12-16 describes. Have the ways of the Age of Conscience been rescinded? No, the same ways are still in effect in humanity and seen in that the Last Judgement shows God using the conscience to judge people. The ways of the Age of Conscience hasn't been rescinded, and when the Covenant of Law came into effect it was layered on top of the requirements of Conscience. Similarly when the Second Covenant came about, did the First evaporate completely, or is it not true that the Lord requires to live by it and above it? Isn't that what Paul says when he tells the Ro we establish the law? Ro3.31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. The ceremonial law was done away with when fulfilled by what Jesus did. The OT is layered, along with the Conscience, in the NT. They have not been rescinded.

Come on over to the Ro2 side. Its nice and comfy here in the shade of God's Word and not at all bad like you think. You'll like here.