John3 and Romans2: Part2

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, for you to make the above statement is a laugh.

Again, you failed in your attempt to prove anything concerning that men are saved by their own righteousness. All who are Apostolics are saved by their good works when: 1) excercizing faith (an operation of the will which is in the brain and thus an action), 2) repenting (which involves turning from sin (an action) and doing restitution, (an action) 3) being baptized (a good work) 4) speaking in tongues (an action) as evidence of having received the Spirit 5) living a holy life (an action). [perhaps you actually believe secretly, in being saved by good works or do you as an Apostolic not believe in the above 5 points? Of course you do and thus actually believe in being saved by good works! Or, why would an extremely intelligent man such as yourself refuse such good logic? Do you refuse? You best be careful about the God-given logic presented in this thread or it will get to you, Dom and you'll end up drinking the Kool-Aid. Careful!

Those who have never heard the Word, and listen to the conscience which had been placed by God are listening to a God-given method which God uses to direct Man to live right. To believe this is good logic. This is following the way God has shown and is not own righteousness. This is unlike those self-righteous who when hearing the Word, refuse it, thinking God's ways aren't for them and that their own good works outside of the Word are good enough to give them heaven. Those who are shown in Ro2 are not doing own righteousness as you wrongly would have us believe. Why does this good logic escape you Benincasa? Do you reject good logic? Stop it. Drink the Kool-Aid, Dom and it will free you to use good logic. You've got it in you to believe all the truth of God's Word, including Ro2.12-16. Don't give up. Keep trying.

That they can follow their own conscience which somehow is motivated by God's Moral law?

I see you stayed away from my question concerning those who have never had the Gospel presented to them. If they would go up in the rapture? Good logic says that the scripture is right. And the scripture is right about needing the Spirit to energize to rise in the rapture. But these gentiles in Ro2, are those who have not the law . Any who have the gospel also have the law. Therefore these can't have the gospel, because Paul says they don't have the law. You believe this logic don't you Dom? Plz don't say you don't because it makes too much sense that a man like you would deny it.

I've not heard of any who doesn't have the gospel having the Spirit and therefore these gentiles in Ro2 wouldn't be raptured. [But then what about Enoch, who was 'raptured'? Seems like he wouldn't have had the Spirit when the Spirit was not yet given, yet was 'raptured', showing that people who don't have the gospel may be 'raptured'??? Enoch lived in a time when there was no law, Ro5.13, and therefore lived by the conscience and what was learned by intellectual reasoning, right Dom? We'll not forget that God had personal communications with people after the Fall, which was spread around. People like Cain, Noah etc had personal law from God spoken to them, and we can't say there was general law given till Sinai or we contradict Paul. You wouldn't contradict Paul who says there was no law, would you? Thus, Enoch will be judged by the conscience and Paul says, in so many words in Ro5.13, that those who don't have the Word will not be judged as if they did have the Word. Enoch did not have the Word. This is good logic, which all should use to believe the Word, right Dom?]

Not having the Spirit does not prevent all from rising in the general resurrection just before the White throne, where all will be judged, by the Books and including the conscience. You believe that the conscience is used at the White throne don't you, Dom? Say yes or no but don't contradict what says Paul in Ro2.16. (But why do you ask a rapture question when you don't believe in the rapture? Or do you secretly believe in the rapture in the back of your mind? Its hard to let go of what our parents/preachers teach us, isn't it?) Or maybe you did? That only those who had the Gospel and obeyed the Gospel would go up in the rapture? While the "right living" individuals went through the 7 years of tribulation? Getting beheaded by the Russians and Arabs?

So, do the "right living" people go up in the rapture before the tribulation? or do they stay here to be beheaded by Nicolae Carpathia?

What 'they' will do now, is pick at meaningless details in attempts to distract from the main points, avoiding it. 'They' will throw up inuendo to avoid facing main points, thinking that using guilt by association will discredit the point maker, disuading any from beleiving the main points. That's what 'they' do when they don't want to walk in the light of what God shows by his Word. But you aren't like that, are you Dom. You'll stick to the topic and reply to the main points with fair play only, right Dom?

.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, do you speak in tongues? I don't mean a wop bop a loo bop a wop bam boom. Or homomashanda I rode in on a Honda, or Peter Fonda on a Honda, and Dennis Hopper on a Chopper. I mean as the Spirit of God gives the utterance? I usually find, that among the non tongue talkers are those who are against tongues being part of soteriology. So, Don, do you speak in tongues as the Holy Ghost gives you the ability?

Whether or not I speak in tongues is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant to the topic and tongues, is what the Word shows on the conscience and on tongues. Act2.1-4. Acts 10.44-46

What is relevant to truth is whether you have the Spirit helping you determine what I say is true or not, and whether you listen to the Spirit speak or not.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Whether or not I speak in tongues is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant to the topic and tongues, is what the Word shows on the conscience and on tongues. Act2.1-4. Acts 10.44-46

Actually it’s very relevant to the topic. Here is yet another conclusion to your ideology. Since you don’t believe tongues is an identifier or qualifier of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. You don’t see it as relevant to soteriology. Therefore encouraging the sincere hearted seeker to seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Not seeking tongues mind you, because that causes other issues. But just encouraging the seeker to press through to a connection with the Holy Ghost. Where they receive everything that Jesus has for them. Disappointingly, you discourage the seeker to receive everything through Spirit baptism. You believe that shaking a preacher’s hand and getting wet is good enough. Therefore you teach a lukewarm bad news. Like I said, find a prayer room not a bathroom. Earnestly seek the Lord Jesus Christ for a restoring of the mind. Did you ever speak in tongues as the Holy Ghost gives the utterance? If you have, did you come to the place in your life where you now believe it to be false?

What is relevant to truth is whether you have the Spirit helping you determine what I say is true or not, and whether you listen to the Spirit speak or not.

So you also believe in a burning in the bosom? Don, religion has sent you down the rabbit hole of no return? Relevancy can be obtained by having scriptural evidence. The Holy Ghost leads us into all truth by the “evidence” of book, chapter, and verse. Reading the Book of Mormon and then praying to see if the Holy Ghost will give us acknowledgement of its contents. Isn’t scriptural, but the Bereans, were only commended because of the diligence to search the scripture to see the truth of the Apostle’s message.

Don, we have searched the scriptures to see if what you are teaching is truth. We just found you lacking in wisdom, judgement, and Holy Ghost sense. I’ve mentioned this pages and pages ago. Yet, you don’t care. You love the sound of your own voice. That’s cool, everyone needs a friend. You refuse to listen to the pleading of the Holy Ghost. So, I guess the sound of your own voice is what you are stuck with.

Don, how long have you been in the Apostolic Pentecostal movement?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Actually it’s very relevant to the topic. Here is yet another conclusion to your ideology. Since you don’t believe tongues is an identifier or qualifier of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. You don’t see it as relevant to soteriology. Therefore encouraging the sincere hearted seeker to seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Not seeking tongues mind you, because that causes other issues. But just encouraging the seeker to press through to a connection with the Holy Ghost. Where they receive everything that Jesus has for them. Disappointingly, you discourage the seeker to receive everything through Spirit baptism. You believe that shaking a preacher’s hand and getting wet is good enough. Therefore you teach a lukewarm bad news. Like I said, find a prayer room not a bathroom. Earnestly seek the Lord Jesus Christ for a restoring of the mind. Did you ever speak in tongues as the Holy Ghost gives the utterance? If you have, did you come to the place in your life where you now believe it to be false?




So you also believe in a burning in the bosom? Don, religion has sent you down the rabbit hole of no return? Relevancy can be obtained by having scriptural evidence. The Holy Ghost leads us into all truth by the “evidence” of book, chapter, and verse. Reading the Book of Mormon and then praying to see if the Holy Ghost will give us acknowledgement of its contents. Isn’t scriptural, but the Bereans, were only commended because of the diligence to search the scripture to see the truth of the Apostle’s message.

Don, we have searched the scriptures to see if what you are teaching is truth. We just found you lacking in wisdom, judgement, and Holy Ghost sense. I’ve mentioned this pages and pages ago. Yet, you don’t care. You love the sound of your own voice. That’s cool, everyone needs a friend. You refuse to listen to the pleading of the Holy Ghost. So, I guess the sound of your own voice is what you are stuck with.

Don, how long have you been in the Apostolic Pentecostal movement?

Here we go again, ladies and gentlemen, Dom is up to his tricks, He loves putting words in people's mouths they didn't say. Whhich ch/v do you turn to for authority to do this, Benincasa?

To put an end to this post, plz start another thread to discuss whether or not tongues are relavent to salvation. And stop putting words in people's mouths. Fight fair or not at all. Everyone can see when you do this, and it soils your reputation. Change your ways b ut also keep trying.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why are you putting Esaias' nick in Red Letters?

Would you like your name in red letters too?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No where in the Bible do we find this. Thx for the opportunity to answer your question. Paul says that there was no law, Ro 5.13, in the age of conscience, yet still uses the word 'sin', which is the transgression of the law (which he has just said doesn't exist). How can it be sin, then? The logical answer which best fits, is the 'law' of soiling the image of God placed in Man when created/conceived. This 'internal law' is pointed to by the conscience when convicted of wrong doing. Makes sense to me and may be the needed explanation for the time when Paul says there was no law...


Don, Just from the conclusions that anyone would reach reading what you have been posting. Little Johnny through God's eternal law recorded in Little Johnny by the image of God. God's Moral Law would of convicted Little Johnny. Therefore in order for Little Johnny to be "right living" he would instinctively knew eating bananas were sin. Yet, man is diametrically opposed to God. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.Agreed, yet inspite of the truth of what you have just said, Man is capable of coming under conviction and this may come from listening to the conscience (among other things). You wouldn't deny this, would you Evangelist? Therefore since Adam allowed Eve to eat from the fig tree of good and evil (the law). They closed access to the olive tree of life (the Body of Christ). We all need the death, burial, and resurrection. No baptism in Jesus name, or the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues? Would cause Little Johnny to die lost. No matter how many bananas he refuse to eat. Don't go ape on me, eating bananas, now, Dom. lol.



There you go again judging God, and His apostles by your religious standards.

The Apostle Paul, would definitely say you would miss the rapture.

But, seriously, Paul in Romans 4:8 (you know the chapter before 5) quotes Psalm 32:1–2. Romans 4:8 uses the Psalm like this, blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Sadly you are clueless of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about. The first man Adam was the Lawbreaker. The second Man Jesus was the Lord from Heaven, the Law giver. The Gospel is about God's grace. Adam and Eve were judged for breaking God's Law, and therefore instead of being killed, they were given grace. Cain murdered his brother. Cain was judged. Instead of God killing him, he was given grace. Noah and seven others were given grace. Because they knew and obeyed God's Law. Which God told them. God spoke with Moses face to face and gave Moses grace. Not one of these individuals I have mentioned had to rely on their own conscience.It sounds here that you would deny the reality of the conscience. Is that which you'd have us believe Dom? Yes or No ,plz. Nor do we read that man's conscience is enhanced by God's Moral Law. You started this paragraph with the word 'seriously' and we would seriously want you to believe that God's Moral Law is an experience each Man has, as testified to by the conscience, which tboth are testified to by the Word. Mystical unseen things like the reality of God and the image of God in Man are known by common experience of Man. The reality of the experience of the image of God is bolstered by what little the Word says of it. Thus they become reality for those who choose to listen to what they say. the Where sin is not imputed means to make payment. God should of killed the first couple. But allowing them to leave the garden until the Christ would come to redeem them was grace.

Don, as I said pages of posts ago. Religion has messed you up something fierce. To you the Apostle and God seem hateful and cruel. So much so that you need to fix them. That you need to be the savior to them. But, the reality is that in Romans we have the best promise to all man kind. That promise is a loving God who grants us grace. If we will just be washed in His blood, and filled with His Spirit. That Spirit will guide us as a good pastor beside still waters. He will restore our souls and lead us into all Truth. Man's conscience void of Christ has done him nothing but ill. If being ill means feeling bad about telling a lie and not doing it again then I would say that God wants us all ill, right Dom?Men guided by their own hearts sure not right living as per God's standard. You should pray Don, and ask Jesus to show you the Truth of His Gospel. Get filled with the Holy Ghost. I just can't wait to see which words Dom Benincasa will put in my mouth in the next post. How about you ladies and gentlemen, are you excited about this too?

.

[donfriesen1]

Post 374 Dom says Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch had God reach out to them. Saul of Tarsus had God reach out to them. It's Biblical how God communicates to the DEVOUT and SINCERE. Errr....Saul of Tarsus was far from righteous but definitely devoted and sincere about torturing and killing Christians, asking why he would be mentioned. By this kind of thinking God will be similarly reaching out to those Muslims, Buddhists, Satanists etc who are sincere and devoted to it but ignorant of truth. Did you notice how Dom skillfully avoids calling Cornelius righteous, using DEVOUT and SINCERE instead, to fit his doctrine where only those born again go to heaven. Cornelius is described as righteous in Ac10.2. Let's not take that righteousness away from him by word play, like Dom wants to do. What Dom emphasizes is that God reaches out to the devout and sincere, while more correctly he reaches out to all -- he makes efforts to reach all sinners and not just the devout and sincere. Remember that scallywag Ahab, the golden boy of sinful-living who is used as a comparison point for other sinners in Israel. One of the most despicable men in the Bible humbles himself to pray and God answers him, 1Kg21.25-28. What grace the Lord shows in reaching out to a chief sinner.

Dom says Don, teach silly doctrines, get silly prizes? Don, diakonos brought up a very good point to one of my posts. post 370 diakonos. I asked you "what was considered "right living" to an Aztec?" which diakonos answered correctly "Human sacrifice?" That is just so silly I'm surprised that an Evangelist would mention this comparison. In what universe is human sacrifice comparable to 'living by a God-given conscience'? Words fail me in wanting to describe my feelings of this. Take a little longer to think of what you say before you print it because this is a new low. The conscience witnesses to God's moral code not the code of idol worshippers. Don't ever think that their code has displaced God's code. Covered over in an individual, yes. Conscience seared in an individual, yes. But every new human gets a good conscience to compare with God's moral code contained in the image of God and make the choice to hear it or hear societies code. Your whole mythos concerning soteriology draws a conclusion which has those who have never heard the Gospel being saved by their own works. Do those who do things God's ways receive a title of trying to be saved by their own works or trying to do it God's way? Any listening to the conscience are heeding what is a God-given method of leading to right living and should not be called doing it by their own works. But keep trying. Good guys don't give up. Being led by their own conscience. In whatever culture they happened to be living in that time of life. Actually, you're probably messed up religiously on so many levels, you can't figure it out. On top of that your can't ever admit you are wrong. Yet, where Joseph Smith solves your problem by Lehi in his yellow submarine going to Central America, to to start a Israel 3.0. Then have Jesus visit the Americas to convert the natives. Joe Smith drops the watermelon by misinterpreting John 10:16. You misinterpret Romans 2:15-16, and apply it to anyone on the planet who has never heard the Gospel. Therefore you logically must apply your ecclesiastical hokum to include Aztecs, Mongols, Aborigines and any other tribe in the outreaches where the Gospel hadn't hit home. You said the conscience contained the law? Therefore I asked you in Post 175 "If it is the Ten Commandments then which god is he or she not supposed to take in vain? Allah? Zeus? Beelzebub? Shiva? Krishna? Thor? Hulk?" Don, it is just a logically conclusion to the nonsense you are continuing to shovel. Again, diakonos brings up "human sacrifice." To a "right living" Aztec that would be what is expected of him. Perhaps true but not reflecting what a conscience would do, which points to the moral code of the image of God, not Aztec religion. Therefore a false argument. But keep trying. The name of Huitzilopochtli would be the name he couldn't take in vain. These individuals living outside of the Gospel events would therefore be judged according to their cultures. But not judged by God according to their cultures. Which were theocratic with the true God or a false God? just like Israel. But in the Bible, God commanded the genocides of the human sacrificing theocracies which were based in the Promise Land. Therefore God would destroy the Aztecs. Can anyone say, Spanish conquest?

Paul teaches in Ro2 that those who have a clean conscience when not having the Word are justified and candidates for heaven, though not born again. Imagine yourself the day before the day of Pentecost, but far from Israel; say S America or Central America or N America. You, who we will call Jose, are one of those who live by the conscience and have a clean conscience -- you live a righteous life, though you don't have the Word. Dom would have you believe that the Lord would send some preacher or prophet from Israel to Patagonia or Kansas to bring you the Word of God because he values your righteousness so much, like he did self-righteous Saul of Tarsus, the Ethiopian eunuch or Cornelius. This truly sounds like the love of God we know and an entirely possible concept, yet is highly unlikely when he had called Israel to be a kingdom of priest's, largely failing to do what they were called to do, Ex19.6. Let's leave that part of this topic at that, but continue on. You, Jose, are righteous and a candidate for heaven by your right-living though you don't have the Word when far from Israel. The day of Pentecost comes and the Church age has begun. All then who are born again are born into the Kingdom of God. According to the version of the gospel that Esaias and Dom and Amanah believe, if you are righteous but not born again, then Jose, who dies the day of Pentecost at 11 pm, will go to hell. The day before the day of Penntercost he was considered righteous and any day after he should also be considered righteous, even though it would take the gospel many months for the gospel of the new birth to reach him. Too bad Jose, according to E and D and A, you will fry because you aren't born again, though righteous. Too bad, so sad. You just weren't lucky enough to be born at the right time and will now suffer in hell for it. Don't believe in the God that E and D and A believe in. Believe in the God of the Bible who doesn't judge a man a saint one day and a sinner the next, when nothing in his life has changed. Their God fries everything that moves but the God of the Bible is a just God who doesn't d.mn the righteous to hell when they don't have the Word. Ro5.13 shows that God doesn't judge those who don't have the Word as if they did have it. Therefore he will not impute the past sin of those who are without the Word, who have chosen to listen to the God-installed guide, called the conscience, which leads people who listen to it to right living. He does not, according to Paul, fry every one who is not born again, if they don't have the Word and are living right.

Consider babies who die without being born again. The principle of Ro5.13 applies to them and they are given a home in heaven.

Consider those baptized who haven't received the Spirit. Their sins have been remitted, forgiven, making them a candidate for heaven, though not born again.

These three examples show that God does not d.mn to hell every one who isn't born again, though it is the gospel of salvation which should be believed and received by every one who has heard the message of Ac2.38.

And what of those many from before the church age, who are not born again. This shows us that the new birth is not the only standard used to judge people by, because they are in heaven. What methods which were used then to determine access are available for the Lord to use to judge those who haven't heard the gospel, or it shows God being unjust and being a respecter of persons. For example, Enoch was considered righteous because God took him. What measure was Enoch compared to when he lived in an age where there was no law. If God judged him as righteous when he lived without law then any others who live without law would be judged with the same measure stick. Paul says those gentiles he talks about in Ro2.12-16 are without law and would then be measured using the same stick or God shows favouritism, a respecter of persons. If Enoch lived by conscience and not law then any others who live by conscience without law may also be considered as righteous as Enoch if their lives line up.

Those not born again fail to enter heaven, when having heard it, reject it.

[Amanah]

I'm sorry you don't like this truth, but that doesn't change it.

The Bible teaches that salvation has always been by faith. In Hebrews 11, we see examples of Old Testament heroes who demonstrated faith in the coming Messiah, and in Romans, we learn that faith is the foundation of our relationship with God.

In Hebrews 11, we read about:

- Abel, who offered a better sacrifice by faith (Hebrews 11:4)
- Noah, who built an ark by faith (Hebrews 11:7)
- Abraham, who obeyed by faith (Hebrews 11:8-10)
- Moses, who persevered by faith (Hebrews 11:24-28)

These individuals, along with many others, were saved by grace through faith, looking forward to the coming Messiah.

In Romans, Paul writes:

- For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28)
- The righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17)
- Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)

Paul emphasizes that salvation has always been by faith, and that the law cannot justify us. Instead, we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the law and became the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

Whether under the old covenant or the new, salvation has always been by faith:

- "Without faith, it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)
- "The righteous shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, did I happen to ask you, how long were you in an Apostolic Pentecostal Church?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Here we go again, ladies and gentlemen, Dom is up to his tricks, He loves putting words in people's mouths they didn't say. Whhich ch/v do you turn to for authority to do this, Benincasa?

To put an end to this post, plz start another thread to discuss whether or not tongues are relavent to salvation. And stop putting words in people's mouths. Fight fair or not at all. Everyone can see when you do this, and it soils your reputation. Change your ways b ut also keep trying.

There is another thread discussing tongues as an initial sign, and how it relates to soteriology. Also, I’m not putting words in your mouth. Your mouth is too full of foot. Right down to your ecclesiastical knee cap. I’m just drawing conclusions from what you are posting. Concerning people going to Heaven minus Jesus’ blood.

Don, do you speak in tongues? I don’t mean Ramalamadong. Or Geeda, geeda, geeda, geeda. I mean as the Spirit gives the utterance. Jesus told Nicodemus this, τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ, καὶ τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκούεις, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται καὶ ποῦ ὑπάγει· οὕτως ἐστὶ πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος.

Jesus was telling Nicodemus that the Spirit breathes where it wishes and you hear its voice, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. Hence when someone is born of the Spirit, you will hear the Spirit’s voice. Yet, like all other parables they were designed though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.’

Don, people need to speak in tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.