John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Right, they will be doing the lawn maintenance for our mansions.

They'll be outside the mansion eating leaves, bless their hearts

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. Regarding the highlighted part...

Paul quotes from Ps19 here in Ro10. Reading Ps19 is seeing the reference to the voice of creation preaching the knowledge of God's glory through out it. It does not testify to knowledge of the spoken/written Word of God going to the end of the earth, but speaks greatly and acutely none-the-less. Paul thus uses a comparison between it and the written but not accurately portraying that the Word went to all the world. Perhaps an example of hyperbole, because the rumour of what happened at Mt Sinai went far and wide, but it would be ridiculous to claim that knowledge of it went to the far reaches of the earth (N + S America, Australia, etc) to every last person on earth, like the voice of creation did, and would be false. Rational thinking shows this as false. Who would think to contend this? Your argument that this shows the knowledge of the Word reaching everyone is thus false, ...but make another effort to "address, like Paul, those who have never heard".

I suspect our modern view of history is incorrect.

.

[donfriesen1]

Was Adam created with a language? Or did the Lord first communicate with him telepathically, much like what we today call 'God speaking to our heart'? God does non-verbally speak to your heart, right? You've heard the testimonies of those who had visions or were taken to heaven, communicating non-verbally during it? If this spiritual method of communication, which we today call speaking to our heart, if this ability was stronger in that time and growing weaker over time as a result of the Fall, it shows a progression. These spiritual abilities of Man growing weaker over time and also a progression of the methods God used in wanting to communicate clearly with Man. The first method used, Man's spiritual abilities, which included the speaking of God's internal moral code in the conscience and also in what is termed 'the Word of the Lord came and said' (which may have been telepathic non-verbal communication). Second, the giving of the 10 Commands and Jewish religious law. Third, the giving of the Holy Ghost, the writing of the Word in Man's heart by his presence, along side the written Word and the conscience. If so, this shows an increasing in the number and means of the methods used to communicate with Man, because there was a need to do so. Man's spiritual abilities had degraded over time, starting with the Fall.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

They'll be outside the mansion eating leaves, bless their hearts

I think Don has been smoking some leaves.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Was Adam created with a language? Or did the Lord first communicate with him telepathically, much like what we today call 'God speaking to our heart'? God does non-verbally speak to your heart, right? You've heard the testimonies of those who had visions or were taken to heaven, communicating non-verbally during it? If this spiritual method of communication, which we today call speaking to our heart, if this ability was stronger in that time and growing weaker over time as a result of the Fall, it shows a progression. These spiritual abilities of Man growing weaker over time and also a progression of the methods God used in wanting to communicate clearly with Man. The first method used, Man's spiritual abilities, which included the speaking of God's internal moral code in the conscience and also in what is termed 'the Word of the Lord came and said' (which may have been telepathic non-verbal communication). Second, the giving of the 10 Commands and Jewish religious law. Third, the giving of the Holy Ghost, the writing of the Word in Man's heart by his presence, along side the written Word and the conscience. If so, this shows an increasing in the number and means of the methods used to communicate with Man, because there was a need to do so. Man's spiritual abilities had degraded over time, starting with the Fall.

Here is a post where Don is making it up. If you reread all his posts accusing Esaias, Amanah, and myself of not providing scripture to refute his ideas concerning Romans 2. He now wants us to believe some conjecture of his own “what ifs?”

Don, conjecture isn’t doctrine. The Bible says the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. Who can know it? But you want us to believe the heart of man is righteous. That we can depend on it to salvation. Listen, your case is weak, and conjecture and teaching from silence of scripture just makes for more stupid teaching. You want us to believe that native Indians during the first century were saved as well as the athenians on the Areopagus? Just because they believed in Wakan Tanka, or Gitche Manitou. All they needed to be is led by their conscience and be “right living” (still don’t know what that means in Don’s context) but I digress. Our boy Don here doesn’t believe fat meats greasy (no Myoglobin in your mash potatoes) Don believes God is a monster. So, since Don no longer believes Acts 2:38 is mandatory, he has come up with this mess. Don, Aztecs ceased to exist at death. Conscience made unconscious. In other words they never knew what hit’em. Your religious dogma only sees God as a bad guy if He doesn’t obey your ecclesiastical emotions.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here is a post where Don is making it up. If you reread all his posts accusing Esaias, Amanah, and myself of not providing scripture to refute his ideas concerning Romans 2. He now wants us to believe some conjecture of his own “what ifs?”

Don, conjecture isn’t doctrine. The Bible says the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. Who can know it? But you want us to believe the heart of man is righteous. That we can depend on it to salvation. Listen, your case is weak, and conjecture and teaching from silence of scripture just makes for more stupid teaching. You want us to believe that native Indians during the first century were saved as well as the athenians on the Areopagus? Just because they believed in Wakan Tanka, or Gitche Manitou. All they needed to be is led by their conscience and be “right living” (still don’t know what that means in Don’s context) but I digress. Our boy Don here doesn’t believe fat meats greasy (no Myoglobin in your mash potatoes) Don believes God is a monster. So, since Don no longer believes Acts 2:38 is mandatory, he has come up with this mess. Don, Aztecs ceased to exist at death. Conscience made unconscious. In other words they never knew what hit’em. Your religious dogma only sees God as a bad guy if He doesn’t obey your ecclesiastical emotions.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Here is a post where Don is making it up. Thinking about scripture is fun. If you reread all his posts accusing Esaias, Amanah, and myself of not providing scripture I didn't say you didn't provide scripture, I said you didn't provide proof to refute. What motivates someone to change another's words? to refute his ideas concerning Romans 2. You all have done an excellent job of presenting NT salvation and a poor job of refuting through scripture that Paul doesn't refer to the work of the conscience giving some who follow the dictates of the conscience when not hearing the Word a home in heaven. But don't stop now -- keep trying. He now wants us to believe some conjecture of his own “what ifs?” Conjecture is optional and scripture is binding.


Don, conjecture isn’t doctrine. True, so true. The Bible says the heart of man is deceitfully wicked. Who can know it? True. But you want us to believe the heart of man is righteous. Not true. That we can depend on it to salvation. Not true. Listen, your case is weak, and conjecture and teaching from silence of scripture Thinking about scripture is fun. just makes for more stupid teaching Perhaps I could thank you that you recognise it as teaching. . You want us to believe that native Indians during the first century were saved as well as the athenians on the Areopagus? I do? Just because they believed in Wakan Tanka, or Gitche Manitou. What? All they needed to be is led by their conscience and be “right living” Most people believe that listening to the conscience leads to living right. I hope that all would believe so. (still don’t know what that means in Don’s context) but I digress. Our boy Don here doesn’t believe fat meats greasy (no Myoglobin in your mash potatoes) Don believes God is a monster. Not true, but there are some who portray him as such. So, since Don no longer believes Acts 2:38 is mandatory Not true. I believe it is necessary for those who have heard it. Reader, ask yourself what motivates why anyone would want to place words in someone elses mouth which they haven't spoken, especially after saying contrary-wise? , he has come up with this mess. What Paul teaches through the Word in Ro2 is not a mess. Don, Aztecs ceased to exist at death. Conscience made unconscious. Might not be true. I conjecture that the rich man in Sheol, of the Rich Man and Lazarus Bible story, had an active conscience. In other words they never knew what hit’em. Your religious dogma only sees God as a bad guy Not true. if He doesn’t obey your ecclesiastical emotions Plz define ecclesiastical emotions. .

That babies go to heaven and aren't born again refutes Dom Benincasa's contention that only the born again go to heaven. Dom's conclusion that only the born again go to heaven means that those who are only baptised and not receiving the Spirit, though forgiven, will go to hell. Don't believe in Dom's God, believe in Jesus. He is the One who receives: babies; the only baptized; and also the ones with a clear conscience when not having heard the Word -- into heaven. He is a great gracious Saviour.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thinking about scripture is fun.

No. It's only fun for you. For others who believe the Bible. It is time wasting and stupid.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I didn't say you didn't provide scripture, I said you didn't provide proof to refute.

What are you a politician with the Liberal Party of Canada?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What motivates someone to change another's words?

It's called drawing a conclusion. You post your false doctrine, and we draw a conclusion based on your offerings. Hence, you can't strengthen your arguments with book, chapter, and verse. You just repeat the same mantra over and over again. We have tried to tell you that we couldn't proceed any further since there was no point in beating a dead horse. You've been proven wrong numerous times in this thread. Listen, if one man calls you a horse, ignore it. If two men call you are horse, ponder their words. If three men call you a horse, then it's time for you to find a saddle. Don, you have been thoroughly refuted by three posters of this forum. You aren't posting anything new where we need to try harder to refute you. Are you lonely Don? Do you have any friends? Do you attend a church? I wish you the best, but I don't know what more to say, other than me to keep reposting the same scriptures I already offered. Don, there isn't a nursery in heaven, or in hell, or in the lake of fire. You must believe that when you talk to Christians about babies burning in hell, as a gotcha. Don, you are a novice in the word.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You all have done an excellent job of presenting NT salvation and a poor job of refuting through scripture that Paul doesn't refer to the work of the conscience giving some who follow the dictates of the conscience when not hearing the Word a home in heaven.

Don, why did you even go to the effort to place a period at the end?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But don't stop now -- keep trying.

Keep trying what? Keeping you company? Don, tell you what, show me all the verses where babies go to hell or heaven? What is heaven like Don? Do we sweat in heaven? What really does burn in a lake of fire? Will we have teeth to gnash? Does heaven have golden streets? Or just one street made of gold that is flooded? Do we burn in hell or does it burn when it is thrown into the Lake of Fire? Do babies have diapers in heaven? Do babies have to learn how to talk in heaven? Or do we all speak telepathically? Don, what is heaven? What is hell? To you? Please explain.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Not true. Not true. Perhaps I could thank you that you recognise it as teaching.

Again, it is the conclusion we are drawing from your teaching. Yes, it is a teaching and not the Bible. It is a doctrine, but a false doctrine. That's what I recognize.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I do?

Yes, you do! You are the one who made the statement in a post about Indians in the Americas before the advent of Christianity. Therefore I mentioned Aztecs NOT HAVING ETERNAL LIFE! Don, discussing this subject with you is an utter futile waste of time. We have all been drawing the same conclusion concerning your mishandling of the scriptures. You going to be the babysitter in heaven?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Most people believe that listening to the conscience leads to living right.

Most people Don? Who are these most people? Are these most people attending your church? Or maybe most people are found walking around town? Unchurched people? People whose favorite Bible story is little drummer boy? Sorry Don, but we don't go looking for doctrine from "most people."

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I hope that all would believe so.

Newsflash, people who study the Bible can't. Don, you have failed miserably to prove your thesis. I'm sorry but Bible teaching is one of your strengths. I just pray to God, you aren't over a congregation.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Not true, but there are some who portray him as such.

Don, you hate the God of the Bible. You believe He is a monster. Therefore you came up with a doctrine based on conjecture. Motivated by ecclesiastical emotions. We are just presenting the God of the Bible. Listen Hoss, if what you were pushing was book, chapter, and verse, we would be all in. Because it's the book. You even know what you are presenting is off in the weeds or you wouldn't be trying so hard for us to buy it.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Not true. I believe it is necessary for those who have heard it. Reader, ask yourself what motivates why anyone would want to place words in someone elses mouth which they haven't spoken, especially after saying contrary-wise?

Necessary for ONLY those who heard it? Don, then wouldn't it be better not to even teach or preach the Gospel at all? Here I am drawing a conclusion to another one of your antibiblical statements. But, if mankind is saved outside of Christ due to never hearing about Christian soteriology. Then wouldn't logically it be better if they have never heard at all? My motivations isn't to put words in your mouth, you already do a splendid job of sticking your foot in yourself.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What Paul teaches through the Word in Ro2 is not a mess.

Don, you don't teach what Paul is teaching in Romans.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Might not be true. I conjecture that the rich man in Sheol, of the Rich Man and Lazarus Bible story, had an active conscience.

So, in torments you can talk with everyone reclining with only one single Hebrew patriarch? Abraham's bosom isn't a place when you can rock infants to sleep. It's a position of fellowship with the father of the covenant.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz define ecclesiastical emotions.

Pretty self explanatory.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

That babies go to heaven and aren't born again refutes Dom Benincasa's contention that only the born again go to heaven.

Where did you prove that babies go anywhere? You really think you put on some ecclesiastical muscle everytime to mention this point. Don, you haven't proven anything about heaven or hell. Babies, Indians, Aztecs, or the anyone else going to sizzle like bacon. Don, maybe you should tell us about hell?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom's conclusion that only the born again go to heaven means that those who are only baptised and not receiving the Spirit, though forgiven, will go to hell. Don't believe in Dom's God, believe in Jesus. He is the One who receives: babies; the only baptized; and also the ones with a clear conscience when not having heard the Word -- into heaven. He is a great gracious Saviour.

What Bible are you reading where God welcomes babies into heaven?

You really are smoking those leaves.

[Esaias]

My daughter had an assignment in Logic today, she had to look through a book or newpaper article to find an argument in one of several particular forms. So I gave her Epictetus to look through, as surely THAT would be a book chock full of arguments.

I opened it at random just to see what would be there, to measure as it were the likelihood of finding argumentation on any page of the book. And I found this, and thought it ironic and quite funny:

What things are to be learned, in order to the right use of reason; the philosophers of our sect have accurately taught; but we are altogether unpractised in the due application of them. Only give to any one of us whom you will some illiterate person for an antagonist, and he will not find out how to treat him. But when he has a little moved the man, if he happens to answer at cross purposes, the questioner knows not how to deal with him any further, but either reviles or laughs at him, and says: "He is an illiterate fellow; there is no making anything of him."

Now, I know Epictetus is trying here to encourage people to be patient and long suffering, in the good old Stoic way, but I couldn't help but notice no matter how much things change, they still stay the same, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Esaias]

And then shortly after that, he reports:

This is no very safe affair now, and especially at Rome. For he who does it must not do it in a corer, but go to some rich consular senator, for instance, and question him. Pray, sir. can you tell me to whom you intrust your horses? "Yes, certainly." Is it then to any one indifferently, though he be ignorant of horsemanship? "By no means." To whom do you intrust your gold or your silver or your clothes? "Not to any one indifferently;" And did you ever consider to whom you committed the care of your body? "Yes, surely." To one skilled in exercise or medicine, I suppose? " Without doubt." Are these things your chief good, or are you possessed of something better than all of them? "What do you mean?" Something which makes use of these, and deliberates and counsels about each of them. "What, then; do you mean the soul?" You have guessed rightly; for indeed I do mean that. " I do really think it a much better possession than all the rest." Can you show us, then, in what manner you have taken care of this soul? For it is not probable that a person of your wisdom and approved character in the state would carelessly suffer the most excellent thing that belongs to you to be neglected and lost. "No, certainly." But do you take care of it yourself; and is it done by the instructions of another, or by your own ability? - Here, now, comes the danger that he may first say, " Pray, good sir, what business is that of yours? What are you to me? " Then if you persist in troubling him, he may lift up his hand and give you a box on the ear. I myself was once a great admirer of this method of instruction, till I fell into this kind of adventures.

lol