John3 and Romans2: Part2

[Esaias]

Now, it seems to me the real intent of the thread is to address the attitude that some (many?) have towards other professing Christians who have not yet come more fully into the "truth". The question is raised about the repentant but unbaptised person, "should they be told they are still going to split hell wide open unless they get baptised in Jesus' name?"

I honestly cannot see the situation actually happening, as described. There are two types of repentant persons: the person who hears apostolic preaching, is convicted, and decides to side with Jesus and follow the Lord. Such persons will almost immediately be baptised, almost always that very day. Even if - as is the practice of some churches, sadly - they are told "to schedule a time next week to be baptised" they are not treated by the other believers as outsiders. At least not that I have ever seen or heard of.

On the other hand, the other type of repentant person, is the one who hears preaching by a non apostolic preacher, in a non apostolic context. Such a person will likely be told "ask Jesus into your heart and you will be born again". Such persons may be told to get baptised for the remission of sins (in a Cambellite, Lutheran, possibly Methodist, Christadelphian, Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic context) but almost certainly using the trinitarian formula of Rome and not the Bible formula of the name of Jesus Christ. So what of these?

Are these people repentant? Is the Gnostic repentant? The Mormon, the Jehovah's Witness? What about the Muslim convert, for that matter? They have amended their lives, they have "stopped the sinning" they were so used to, they have "turned over a new leaf". Does heaven rejoice over such persons and their change of life? Sure. God and heaven always rejoice whenever and wherever righteousness and goodness prevail over evil and wickedness. Are such persons Biblically "repentant"? That is, have they REPENTED in the Gospel sense?

I think in most cases, NO. Repentance implies more than just that the thief stop stealing or the adulterer stop adulterating or that the liar stop lying. It implies a turning FROM SIN (as such) and a turning in faith towards God through Jesus Christ. It implies hearing the Gospel and saying "yes".

Have such persons heard the Gospel? Not have they heard something about someone called "Jesus" but have they heard the Message ordained by God and delivered to the apostles and sent forth into the world? I don't doubt that many people have heard about Jesus, been drawn to him, and for whatever reason take a long time to come to the waters of genuine apostolic baptism, travelling through many winding and twisting roads of erroneous theology to wind up in the end at the Truth. His sheep hear His voice, through all the din and bluster of the world's religious nonsense. Eventually they come to Him.

ANYONE who professes belief in Jesus should be welcomed, and encouraged to continue with God into all the truth. Anyone who balks at the truth, at whatever step along the way, either doesn't understand what is being presented or is proving they are "not all of us". Not everyone claiming to belong to Jesus does in fact belong to Him. Time tells all, and we are sanctified by God's Truth, that is what sets us apart. So those who REJECT truth simply identify themselves with the world and its errors.

But anyone who shows up to an apostolic meeting, having previously been to the local Baptist evangelist's rally, and got convicted and decided to give their life to Jesus, will be GLAD to hear about Acts 2:38, they will be GLAD to hear about the Holy Ghost, they will be GLAD to be exposed to the Truth in all its facets, because if they DID repent, then they have a love for the truth and will follow the Spirit's leading into all truth.

Otherwise, they never had it to begin with.

So no, we don't need to tell someone "hey you repented but you haven't been baptised yet, see? So you're on your way to a devil's hell for real for real no cap." no, we should simply tell them "Ah, great, you have decided to follow Jesus! Well here is what He said, and what His apostles said, about how we are to follow him, so come along with us together to the City of the King!" If they refuse? Then they judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1615247]Now, it seems to me the real intent of the thread is to address the attitude that some (many?) have towards other professing Christians who have not yet come more fully into the "truth". The question is raised about the repentant but unbaptised person, "should they be told they are still going to split hell wide open unless they get baptised in Jesus' name?"

Yes, you've got it right. Its about attitude. But there may be more to this. Plz allow me to think out loud as I write. I say that because the thoughts are underdeveloped; I haven't put enough time into it to come to any firm conclusions.

First, let it be said that I believe in Jn 3.5 and Ac2.38 as necessary for those wanting 100%. Is there a place in God's world where he can accept those who give 95%? Or said another way, is it 100% with God or you go to hell? Very few of us will admit to giving 100% and do we condemn ourselves by admitting it. Admittedly, this argument confuses 2 different topics; obedience to the salvation message and the obedience to total committment. They are separate things.

Second, NT salvation is about Covenant. Is there a place in God's world where relationships exist without covenant? The time from Adam to Sinai was a time without law and isn't some law a necessary component of any covenant? Of that 2500 year period we know of no general law nor general covenant requirement. (Noah had covenant, but perhaps only a personal not on a group level as shown with Israel and the Church. Abraham also had covenant.) Of the many people in this time who are righteous, Enoch being one, can it be said to be without covenant? God is in some sort of relationship with everyone he has created but many without covenant. If it can be said of these, then what is to prevent any from saying that a person today can not be viewed righteous outside of covenant. Saying it another way: should we be eager to condemn anyone who hasn't entered covenant while still making efforts to share the full gospel with these? Having a less condemning attitude absolves no Apostolic of the responsibility of sharing the whole Word of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

First, let it be said that I believe in Jn 3.5 and Ac2.38 as necessary for those wanting 100%. Is there a place in God's world where he can accept those who give 95%? Or said another way, is it 100% with God or you go to hell?

Reminds me of a song:

[donfriesen1]

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law. 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.

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time? This is an important question because it is in the Age of Conscience that God judges the world for sin, by the Flood. Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world. Sin is usually defined as breaking the law. How can Paul say that there was no law but in the same breath say that they are breaking the law. There must have been another standard for determining sin, of determining right and wrong. Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie. This feeling, in those who don't read the Bible, comes from the conscience God placed in Man, and also from our intellect. (Nit-pickers will say we shouldn't live by our feelings. And nit-pickers will also say we should use our feelings because that is how we descern what is going on in the world around us.) When someone lies to us we are bothered by it. We feel wronged when lied to and our intellect/reasoning tells us if we feel wronged when lied to, then it is wrong to lie to anyone else because they may feel wronged. Conscience is the standard-maker-for-sin in the time when Paul says there was no law. If not this then what?

Also, we are made in the image of God. God has a built-in standard of right and wrong that is within him. (The nit-picker will say that God has no 'internal'.) In eternity he has no Book like the Bible for standards of right and wrong. He is the standard. If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong? Logic and faith in what God's Word tells us about the image of God would make this true. When God created Adam and Eve they were given perhaps one law, don't eat that fruit, and the means for the determining of right and wrong was from within them, their conscience and intellect. It was the sin-determiner till the giving of the Law at Sinai. Enoch lived by his conscience and intellect. While not specifically mentioned in an earlier post (because his fame is so great it needed no mention), it is well-known by me and most of the Christian world, without mention, that he pleased God, that God took him. Christians believe he went to heaven without seeing death. If Enoch doesn't have the Word of God to give him faith to live right because law didn't exist, then what is the source of his faith? It has got to come from somewhere, but it doesn't come from a non-extant Word or Law. (The nit-picker will say that the Word of God is forever settled in Heaven, therefore exists eternally.) Where does your reasoning ability say Enoch's faith comes from? Mine tells me that it comes from his conscience and intellect because, apart from divine revelation, what other source could it be? There is no law. Enoch certainly had faith but didn't have faith in the Word of God because it was not yet given. Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Enoch lived in a time when God had not given law.

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

Abraham knew and kept the commandments, statutes, and laws of God, long before Mt Sinai. I wonder where he got any of that information?

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).

How did people discern between right and wrong in Enoch's time?

Genesis 5:22 KJV
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

What does it mean to "walk with God"?

Genesis 6:9 KJV
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Genesis 17:1 KJV
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Deuteronomy 10:12-13 KJV
And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, [13] To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

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 that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

From the very next verse:

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.

Ro5.13 says For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Paul says there is no law but still says that sin was in the world.

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!

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.

If God has an internal standard of right and wrong, and we are made in his image, isn't it logical that we also would be created with an internal standard of right and wrong?

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.

Similarly, these Gentiles in Ro2.12-16 have faith of sorts like Enoch and Paul says they don't have the law.

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"). The Gentiles he speaks of however, do in fact the things contained in the law, they 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.

More importantly, Paul identifies these Gentiles as having an inward spiritual heart circumcision:

Romans 2:25-29 KJV
For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. [26] Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? [27] And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

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.

Who is "circumcised in heart"? Heathens who have a vague sense of right and wrong? No. CHRISTIANS:

Colossians 2:8-13 KJV
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: [11] In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: [12] Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. [13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Philippians 3:3 KJV
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Even if many don't read the Bible everyone still feels it is wrong to lie.

Says who?

I've met plenty of people who didn't feel at all "bad" about lying. Plenty of people who think lying is perfectly okay to get what they want.

Where is this idea coming from that "EVERYBODY feels it is wrong to lie"?

And even if they did, what of the other commandments? Like "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy"? Or "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images, thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them"? Does everybody "feel" such things are wrong? Seriously?

A lot of people have a normalcy bias where they think everyone around them is basically like they are. This is how people get mugged or taken advantage of, ripped off, and even killed, because they think some other person is basically "just like them". Not realising that it is unwise to measure people by other people (including yourself):

2 Corinthians 10:12 KJV
For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[Amanah]

Romans 2 is teaching the Jewish believers in Roman that Gentile believers are saved because:

*when they receive the Spirit the law is written on their hearts,
*and when they are baptized, their hearts are spiritually circumcised

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

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

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God

[Amanah]

God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger on two tablets of stone (Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:15-16).

However, Paul points out, under the New Covenant, God has given us His Spirit, enabling us to keep His laws in their spiritual intent. He is now writing His Ten Commandments on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10)!

[Amanah]

The problem with the thought that the unregenerate person can be spared is that only those with the Holy Spirit will be resurrected to immortality


According to the apostle Paul in the Bible, the Holy Spirit is the "earnest of our inheritance" as described in Ephesians 1:14. The term "earnest" is used to describe the Holy Spirit as a pledge or guarantee of a believer's future inheritance in Christ. This inheritance is the believer's future bodily redemption from sin and eternity with the Lord. The Holy Spirit acts as a down payment or deposit that guarantees God will fulfill his promises to the believer, and that everything inside them is impeccable. The Holy Spirit also assures believers that they will be given what God has stored up for his people, which will result in the honor of God's glory.

[Amanah]

“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” is a quote from the Bible, 1 Corinthians 2:14. In this verse, Paul compares the natural man to the spiritual man and the carnal man. The natural man is described as having a hard, unregenerated heart that is not receptive to God or things of God. He is an unredeemed being who lives without God and godliness in the world.