What's the point of having free will if we get punished for using it? It just doesn't make sense. We have free will, but after we die, we get punished for using it. So what's the point of having it?
What's the point of having free will if we get punished for using it? It just doesn't make sense. We have free will, but after we die, we get punished for using it. So what's the point of having it?
From my own thoughts and beliefs, God only saves those who have proven that they want to have a relationship with Him/Her/Them.
@ Slay. That you put put "He" in quotes is a bit perplexing. Thank you, btw, for putting a link to your church. Very interesting website. I won't go into my thoughts beyond that here in the forum.
Now, concerning Romans 2:13-15. You ask if God loves all, why did he not save all.
First, the love of God is not mentioned until Rom 5:5. If we fast forward to that passage, we find in 4:20-21 that Abraham believed God would fulfill his promises. In showing faith, he proved himself to be a child of God. That faith is also what links us to God. That righteousness imputed by faith is the same that makes us worthy to stand in God's presense. And the One who makes that possible is Jesus Christ, who was raised from the dead, saving us from the consequences of our sin (4:24-25).
Reconciled and at peace with God, we still face hard times on the earth. This is for our own good, building character and making us cling to God rather than men. But more than that, it helps us identify with Jesus, who had to die that we can live. But, we were not worthy of affection -- we were ungodly sinners but God showed us His love when we were still sinners! That love was not to "all" people, but only to those "who are called' (Rom 8:28).
Now back to the building argument of chapter 2.
Coming in from chapter 1, Paul has shown that many (if not most) people have willfully rejected the truth for lies. However, they know within their hearts that certain things are wrong. And knowing this, they still break their own laws. These folk need God's mercy as much as any Jew might. Everyone, without exception, will get the punishment they deserve unless Jesus has intervened on their behalf. That is the gist of the parenthetical verses you cite.
The argument Paul presents can be presented without this evidence. Summarizing Rom 2:1-12, 16:
(1) Everyone has a conscience, and instinctly knows right from wrong.
(2) Everyone breaks the rules that they do know.
(3) God pays attention, rewarding those who do good and punishing those who do evil.
(4) Only Jesus knows the true nature of those coming before the throne for judgment.
So, the parenthesis tells us why this is so. The Law of God is the standard which no one can meet on their own. It does not matter if one knows the law if they don't obey it. Even those who have not read the Law, know what they are doing.
Though you did not mention it, the argument for universal love goes back to John 3:16. "For God so loved the world ..." but the context makes it clear that not all were saved. Only the believers are saved. The others face eternal punishment. When Scripture seems to be self-contradictory, then another explanation is needed to one or both sides of the argument. Chapters 8 and 9 of Romans helps clarify the recipients of God's love.
I believe they put He in quotes because God isn't male or female.
Hmm.. a theological distinction not observed by the Bible translators? You are probably right.
BTW, is that same lack of distiction in anonymous Usernames why you refer to Slay as "they" though she is a singular person?
Sorry, that is just one of those pet peeves of mine (as an "old geezer"). If in doubt, in my day an individual was just "he." A quick check reveals that Slay is female, so I call her "she." The old use until mid-twentieth century uses the male pronoun as the generic in English. That changed before you were born, though.
Well, "they" is gender-neutral pronoun as well as being a pluralizing one. I didn't know whether or not she was male or female, and decided that a gender-neutral pronoun was more appropriate than "it".
I suppose that Hebrew "הוא" or "hu" was used to denote authority as well as gender. Which is why it is presumed that all angels are male and that God is a He.
Jesus Christ, just call me an IT and get it over with, the debate isn't on he, she, we, it, they, you, me, I-ota, it's scripture.
I am quite aware that "they" has come to mean "gender" neutral. However, there is no grammatical purpose in this. According to Dictionary.com, though the informal use of "they," "their" and them goes back to at least Shakesphere. "If anyone calls, tell them I will be out for the day." But even with this usage, "they" takes a plural verb: "The student brought a note to show why they were late."
Like I said, it's a pet peeve of mine. It is now used regularly where a "he" would work just fine. I don't mind if "she" is used in the same way.
As for "hu" -- I have seen in used of women -- same spelling! -- so I suppose it is a good alternative. As fare as God (the Father, not parent), I think "He" is appropriate. The Bible states that the husband (man) is to be head of the wife, and that God is to be the head of the man. The OT has God's relationship to His people as that of a man to his wife. Idolotry is likened unto harlotry (Hosea's wife Gomer). And with the angels, they are called "men" and the two named ones have male names. I agree, for the most part, that they no more have gender than does Yahweh, who made mankind to be male and female -- both in the image of the Creator.
Slay, I must remind you of the Third Commandment. You have used the name of our Lord in vain. I'll just call you Slay. Or Elizavet. :-)
SouthWriter wrote: Slay, I must remind you of the Third Commandment. You have used the name of our Lord in vain. I'll just call you Slay. Or Elizavet. :-)
Elisavet, or Elisabeth works, Slay is also fine. Also, take a careful look at "NT" "grace" regarding veinly invoking Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit' name.