Sabbath School subject discussion thread

Adventtruth said:

This is no lie. You argued from another site that you kept asking us to read. But I suppose thats another red herring. The real issue is you wont debate from the scriptures with context.

AT

Click to expand...

The opening word of v. 14--"indeed"--is important as showing that in the discussion of the Gentile situation to which Paul now turns he has in mind a presentation designed to counter the boastfulness of the Jew. He seems anxious to avoid the impression that he is discussing the Gentiles in their entirety (he says "Gentiles," not "the Gentiles"). He is thinking of them in individual terms, not as masses. Furthermore, if he encompassed all men save the Jews in his statement, the contrast with the adverse picture of pagans in chapter 1 would be so startling as to suggest contradiction. There are Gentiles who, despite their apparent disadvantage in not possessing the Mosaic law, "do by nature" what the law requires.
What are these things? Presumably, they are not matters peculiar to the law of Moses, but moral and ethical requirements widely recognized and honored in mankind generally. It is a commonplace of rabbinic teaching that Abraham kept the laws of Sinai long before they were given. Philo taught a correspondence between the law and nature, saying that Moses "wished to show that the enacted ordinances are not inconsistent with nature" (On Abraham, 5). Again, Philo notes that Moses begins his work with an account of the creation of the world, "implying that the world is in harmony with the Law, and the Law with the world, and that the man who observes the law is constituted thereby a loyal citizen of the world, regulating his doings by the purpose and will of Nature, in accordance with which the entire world itself also is administered" (On the Creation, 3)
Paul states that such men as he has in mind are "a law for themselves." By no means does he intend to say that they are indifferent to any law except that which they invent in their self-interest. On the contrary, he goes on to say that they are governed by the law that is written on their hearts. This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren observes, Gentiles "would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it" (in loc.). Paul is not asserting this. Rather, he is insisting that the basic requirements of the law are stamped on human hearts. Presumably, he can say this because man is made in the image of God. C.S. Lewis begins his argument in The Case for Christianity by pointing out that when quarrels develop between people, the thing to be determined is who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The parties may differ radically as to their respective positions on this issue, but they are very clear that there is a right and there is a wrong. Similarly, despite the great differences in laws and customs among peoples around the world, what unites them in a common humanity is the recognition that some things are right and others are wrong.
An additional element that belongs to the equipment of the Gentiles is conscience (v. 15). The translation speaks of their consciences as "bearing witness." In the Greek text there is an emphasis that does not appear in the translation-bearing witness with, so one must ask, With what? Only one answer seems possible, namely, with the requirements of the law written on the heart. The two function together. In the OT the word "conscience" does not appear. Perhaps this is due to the Jews' overwhelming awareness of the regulating power of revealed truth. However, the operation of conscience is recognized (e.g., Gen 42:21; 2Sam 24:10), even though the word is lacking.
Paul's fairly frequent use of the term "conscience" indicates his indebtedness to his Greek environment and the desirability of capitalizing on a concept that was familiar to his Gentile churches. With reference to the passage we are considering, C.A. Pierce writes, "That the everyday language of the Gentiles contains a word for confessing to feelings of pain on commission or initiation of particular acts--feelings which carry with them the conviction that the acts ought not to have been committed--is first-hand evidence that the Gentiles are subject, by nature, to a `natural law' as the Jews, by vocation, to the Torah" (Conscience in the New Testament [London: SCM Press, 1955], p. 86). So it can be maintained that the function of conscience in the Gentile is parallel to the function of the law for the Jew. The way conscience operates is described as a process of accusation or defense by the thoughts of a man, the inner life being pictured as a kind of debating forum, so that at times he finds himself exonerated at the bar of conscience, at other times convicted of wrong.
"This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets" (v. 16). The difficulty to be faced here is the determination of what will take place. Does Paul mean that only at the judgment will conscience be engaged in the manner he has just indicated? This would seem to be a severe limitation, unless the intent is to indicate a heightened operation of this God-given monitor as the soul faces the divine assize. It is possible that vv. 14, 15 should be regarded as a parenthesis, in which case what takes place on the day of judgment is the declaration of righteousness (or otherwise) referred to in v. 13. This interpretation makes good sense, but it has the disadvantage of making a rather unexpected connection, because of the length of the intervening material.
God's judgment will include men's "secrets" (cf. 1Cor 4:5). This is the only court able to assess them. Many an act that seems entirely praiseworthy to those who observe it may actually be wrongly motivated, and contrariwise some things that seem to men to merit stern disapproval may pass muster in this supreme court because the intention behind the deed was praiseworthy. The Jew theoretically admitted judgment and certainly welcomed it in the case of the Gentile, while trying to shield himself behind his privileged position. The non-Jew admitted the reality of judgment implicitly by the very process of reasoning that either accused or excused his conduct. What the Gentile did not know was the item included here--that God will judge "through Jesus Christ" (John 5:27; Acts 17:31).
Some interpreters have seen in the closing statement, "as my gospel declares," a fourth principle of judgment intended to be linked with the three we have noted. This is more understandable if one works from a literal rendering of the text--"according to my gospel." But to make the gospel, in the sense of its content, to be the criterion for judgment in this context is clearly wrong, for Paul is not dealing with the gospel in this chapter. What he is saying is that the gospel he preached includes the prospect of judgment and that it will be conducted through the mediation of Christ.

Click to expand...

Adventtruth said:

Now I find it interesting that sentipente has the title of a pastor in his profile, and he post regularly on this section of the forum, which leads me to think he is a Adventist pastor in Indiana.

So why would he avoid the questions I posted to him about 1Tim 4:10? And then Victor asked question of him pertaining to that text, and then mva1985 ask the same question.

This is another great example of those who refuse to debate in good conscience. He was the first to put that text forward as a rebutle to one of my postings but then when asked questions about something he started, feeling backed into a corner, he refuses to answer the question but playes his games.

I guess when you are ready to stop playing game and be accountable , you will answer.

AT

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by RC_NewProtestants

Be a little more clear for us AT, are you saying that Abraham, Joseph, David Solomon and all those other Old testament folks will not be saved? They had no idea who Christ is, no knowledge of the man named Jesus Christ at all, at best some of them may have given a prophetic allusion to Christ but that is far from knowing who Christ is.
​

RC...did you happen to notice what verb tense I used in that posting?

In my opinion you are simply taking a verse from the New Testament and interpreting it in a very narrow way that is not likely how it was meant to be understood.
​

And what verse did I use in that passage RC...I don't think I used a passage.

AT

Click to expand...

What is the source of this idea?
Originally Posted by StormyOne

AT if you already know what I believe and think you don't need me to participate in this dialog... continue on without me..... there will be many who are saved who have no idea who Christ is... so no I don't agree with your premise...

peace
​

And let me kindly ask again Stormy...show me where you get this idea that many will be saved that have no idea of who Christ is? Where is this idea coming from...if its the bible kindly show us here at Christianforums the chapter and verse. IF this is indeed true, I would like to see the source as well

AT

Click to expand...