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.
Threaded Mode
