Temporal Justification

[Darrell C]

Jesus answers Nicodemus and says two things are required for man to be born again: Water and the spirit.

On the contrary, Campion, you are confusing the result with the cause.

There is only one thing Christ teaches to be necessary for men to be born again/from above and born of the Spirit and of water:


John 3:9 King James Version

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

John 3:14 King James Version

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


This is the how, and you are trying to make the result the how instead of what Scripture, and the Lord Himself teach.

Do you understand your error on that? Because this is going to be the one question you are going to have to answer before we go any further.

New Birth is the result (being born again/from above and being born of God, and being born of water and the Spirit).

Christ's Death, His being lifted up—is the cause.

So you are trying to teach salvation with the result, rather than the cause.

Understand?

Christians call this ceremony whereby man is born again in water and the spirit baptism.

I agree, there are many Christians who have embraced the equally false doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

That doesn't change the fact that the water in view is the washing of water by the Word.

The disciples were "clean" through the Words Christ spoke. Peter makes it clear that the baptism he speaks of is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (bodily cleansing). He also makes it clear what the water is here:


1 Peter 1:23 King James Version

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


Not by getting dunked or sprinkled. That is simply a testimony of salvation by the believer, just as John's baptism of repentance was a testimony that the ones being baptized by him had repented.

Not that could obtain repentance.

He refused to baptize those he knew had not repented.

The only salvific Baptism is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. you can read where Scripture makes that clear in Acts 11:13-18.


God bless.

 

[Cathode]

I've addressed all of them in detail, Cathode.

Here is an example of that:

You say the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches:


1 John 5 King James Version

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


The temporal works are mentioned in v.2-3, but they are said to be proof/s of what has taken place in the life of the believer.

Being born of God is a result of believing that Jesus is the Christ (v.1).

Overcoming the world is through being born of God (v.4).

Overcoming the world is due to believing that Jesus is the Son of God.


Nothing in there about being born of God or overcoming the world due to works, my friend.

You are preaching another gospel, and it is false, and it does not agree with Scripture.

I'm not going to continuously address your opinions while you completely ignore the points I am making. Please try to address these points, Cathode.

This is in response to your comment ...



You are denying "faith alone" which isn't really something I teach. However, that men are saved by Christ alone and grace alone and that this leads to faith alone is.

I can break this statement down and address it point by point but what is the use? You have ignored every response that I have done that in.

You don't want to have a discussion, you just want to preach the gospel of Cathode, and ignore what the other side has to say.

So why would I bother?

When you can show you are willing to address the points made to you I will resume addressing you false doctrine evangelism. but you have to give to get, amigo.


God bless.

You gave a long answer not giving an answer.

Can I have just Faith alone in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, not care and show mercy for those in need that pass through my life, then go on happily to Heaven ?

Yes or No if you are time short.

 

[Darrell C]

You gave a long answer not giving an answer.

Can I have just Faith alone in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, not care and show mercy for those in need that pass through my life, then go on happily to Heaven ?

Yes or No if you are time short.

Understanding isn't going to be achieved with opinions, Cathode. The answer wasn't that long, and it certainly addresses your works-based gospel.

The short answer to this one is, yes, you can have just faith alone in Christ, that is the one thing that is a result of salvation, not the cause. You don't seem to understand that. We are saved by grace through faith, not saved by faith through grace.

But it is unlikely that you will go through life not having care and mercy for others, because you are a new creature, and your disposition is also a result of salvation.

You understand that Christians that sin can be put to death by GOd, right? The death penalty is still on the table, even for born again believers. But that death is physical, not spiritual.

You ask for a yes or a no, but it isn't that simple. There are numerous things that have to be understood to come to a right conclusion, and you are unwilling even to listen to the reasoning behind my view.

So let me make this as simple as possible: men are not saved by faith through grace, they are saved by God's Grace alone.

The means for their salvation is the Cross of Christ alone.

I'm not a Martin Luther groupie, I think he has failed in his teaching in this way: he has failed to distinguish between Temporal and Eternal Justification. That has led to men thinking we are saved by faith through grace.

Even you make that mistake, and you fight against the doctrine.

Men are not saved by what they do, else it is no longer by grace, but of works.


God bless.

 

[Campion]

Actually, I showed in detail that Paul was hopeful of the Rapture while he was alive. That is the point of "not being unclothed" with the earthly tabernacle. Pretty simple to understand.

The above is not an address of that point.

Tsk, tsk, Campion.

No, you haven’t shown St. Paul was hopeful of a Rapture as you understand it because there was no such belief until Darby invented it in the 19th century. The idea that Jesus will come twice, first to take a selected number of people up to heaven on a specific date is a fable. In fact ,many who subscribe to this Rapture fable have even put specific dates down and of course have been wrong every single time. One thinks of the latest to try this stunt and failed spectacularly, Harold Camping.

What St. Paul was teaching the faithful at Thessaloniki was that many of them expected the parousia was immanent and Christians were fearful of dying before Christ’s expected return. St. Paul is reassuring the faithful at Thessaloniki so they “may not grieve as others do who have no hope.” He assures the faithful that those who are alive when Christ returns, “…will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Thess 4:13-15). St. Paul goes on to describe the eschaton, when Christ triumphantly returns, the trumpet blows, the dead rise, then those still living reign with Christ forever in the new heaven and the new earth.

Tsk, tsk, Darrel C.

So in other words—it's not your belief.

It's the belief of a man that you agree with what you want to believe. That would be Augustine's belief, and at least, though he was wrong, he embraced that belief through study.

You can't say the same.

Maybe start with my point concerning Paul's desire for the rapture. That will force you to get out of commentaries and into the Word of God.

In other words, you agree with what you want to believe. That would be John Nelson Darby’s belief. Unlike St. Augustine, who learned, studied and expounded on the faith of the Church, Darby simply made up his Rapture fable out of thin air after recovering from a riding accident in late 1826. (Source)

Again, syllogism.

Augustine denies the Millennial Kingdom.

Campion agrees with Augustine.

Conclusion: there is no rapture.

lol


God bless.

Again, syllogism.

Darby invents a the idea of a Rapture of a select few with a quasi-second coming of Christ

Darrell C aggress with Darby.

Conclusion: there is a Rapture

lol


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

No, you haven’t shown St. Paul was hopeful of a Rapture as you understand it because there was no such belief until Darby invented it in the 19th century.

I have. Here it is again:

Campion said: ↑
"It is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment" says St. Paul.
Doesn't change the fact that we go to be with the Lord:


2 Corinthians 5:6-8 King James Version

6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.


If you understand the context, you understand Paul is speaking about our spirits being in the earthly body we are now in, and yearning for the heavenly (glorified/redeemed) body made in Heaven. We are absent from the Lord while we are in this body, but present with Him when we are not.

I will jump ahead to another statement you make (since we are in this passage):


Campion said: ↑
The idea of Jesus coming twice, once in secret to remove Christians from suffering, was a fable invented by Darby in the 19th century and popularized by moderns such as Lindsey. It is the equivalent of Christian science fiction.
The Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a First Century Doctrine of Paul the Apostle, who is in this statement speaking about being raptured:


2 Corinthians 5:6-8 King James Version

1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.


He makes the statement that we groan desiring to be clothed with that heavenly body. Not that we should die, but that we would be clothed upon while we are alive. He makes that clear in the next statement:


4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

See that? We groan to be clothed upon. Not that we should die, or in his words, "be unclothed from our earthly tabernacles."

See it? That mortality might be swallowed up of life. "Mortality" cannot be swallowed up of life if one is already dead.

Paul makes the same statement here ...



Romans 8:23 KJV
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.



If you feel it doesn't show this, then what you need to do is address the Scripture and points made and show why.

Just saying "You haven't" is just the expression of opinion.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darby invented it in the 19th century.

As I said, it is a First-Century Doctrine of Paul.

I can show you the First-Century teachings to verify it. I have given commentary as to why I believe it refers to a Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

Just because you cling to an argument that is patently untrue and used by those who have to cling to the arguments of men doesn't change the facts.

Have you ever actually studied the other side of your argument? You need to. Google "Rapture teachings through the centuries," or something. lol


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The idea that Jesus will come twice, first to take a selected number of people up to heaven on a specific date is a fable.

That is what Paul teaches.

Again, the Rapture involves all of the Church, alive and dead.

The First Resurrection only involves the dead.

Please address the points, Campion.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In fact ,many who subscribe to this Rapture fable have even put specific dates down and of course have been wrong every single time. One thinks of the latest to try this stunt and failed spectacularly, Harold Camping.

What has that got to do with the OP and my own statements?

Please address the points.

Did I not say that those who reject the Pre-Tribulational Rapture never address the points, but continually jump from one argument to another?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

What St. Paul was teaching the faithful at Thessaloniki was that many of them expected the parousia was immanent and Christians were fearful of dying before Christ’s expected return. St. Paul is reassuring the faithful at Thessaloniki so they “may not grieve as others do who have no hope.” He assures the faithful that those who are alive when Christ returns, “…will not precede those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Thess 4:13-15). St. Paul goes on to describe the eschaton, when Christ triumphantly returns, the trumpet blows, the dead rise, then those still living reign with Christ forever in the new heaven and the new earth.

Yet in the First Resurrection, only the dead among the believing are raised.

This is seen also in Matthew 24 and in fact in all prophecy concerning this event.

Why do you keep ignoring this point?

If you like, I could help you with some of the arguments you are going to jump to after you ignore these points. Just let me know.

Of course, I will also have to show why those arguments break down.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Tsk, tsk, Darrel C.

Why, I am flattered, Campion.

They same mimicry is the greatest compliment one can receive.




Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

In other words, you agree with what you want to believe. That would be John Nelson Darby’s belief. Unlike St. Augustine, who learned, studied and expounded on the faith of the Church, Darby simply made up his Rapture fable out of thin air after recovering from a riding accident in late 1826. (Source)

I've never actually read a single word by Darby that I can recall, much less studied his teachings.

I can rely on the witness and testimony of the First-Century Scripture.

I am a little surprised because usually this is the last-ditch effort of those who reject the Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

Or have you already run out of arguments?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, syllogism.

New word?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Again, syllogism.

Darby invents a the idea of a Rapture of a select few with a quasi-second coming of Christ

Darrell C aggress with Darby.

Conclusion: there is a Rapture

lol


God bless.

Actually, I would have to know what Darby taught in order to agree with him, and since I don't know what he taught it is a moot issue.

Hence this make the charge of syllogism false, lol. But as I said, I am flattered.

So the one question I would like for you to answer is this: Are there two resurrections in Revelation 20, or just one?


God bless.

 

[JesusFan]

Actually, I would have to know what Darby taught in order to agree with him, and since I don't know what he taught it is a moot issue.

Hence this make the charge of syllogism false, lol. But as I said, I am flattered.

So the one question I would like for you to answer is this: Are there two resurrections in Revelation 20, or just one?


God bless.

Did any hold to the pre trib viewpoint before darby though?

 

[Marooncat79]

Justification is not temporal

 

[Walter]

Did any hold to the pre trib viewpoint before darby though?

While a Freshman at Biola College I read Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and There’s A New World Coming. I marveled that so many people, including Catholics, could not see the coming of the Great Tribulation. Many sermons and Bible studies focused on the approaching Rapture, the return of Christ “in the clouds” to take his church, consisting of “true believers,” secretly up to heaven. Most mainline Protestants were not “true believers,” and as for Catholics-they were both brainwashed and ignorant of the Gospel.

The belief in the Rapture is rooted in the fourth and fifth chapters of 1 Thessalonians, which are placed into an elaborate chronology of “end-time” events based on other passages from Revelation, Daniel, and Matthew 24. Often the Rapture was called the “day of the Lord” which would come like ” a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2). After this secret removal of believers would come the rise of the Antichrist and the implementation of the “Mark of the Beast” during seven years of Tribulation. At the end of those seven years would take place the second coming of Christ and Armageddon, the final battle between good and evil.

Particular attention was given to modern-day Israel, since it was believed these great events would finally come to pass in the generation immediately following Israel’s reemergence as a nation. Then, after his Second Coming, Christ would set up his kingdom in Jerusalem and reinstate the sacrificial system of the Mosaic covenant, including the sacrificing of animals in the Temple. This millennial reign would last a thousand years.

For most Catholics, such beliefs about the future seem bizarre. Many are aware that certain Evangelical and non-denominational Bible churches hold puzzling views about the end of the world, but Catholics usually ignore them. Most people, regardless of denomination or church affiliation, are unfamiliar with the term “dispensationalism.” Yet it is the common source for those groups who believe in the Rapture, the seven-year Tribulation, and the literal thousand-year reign of Christ. Dispensational assumptions permeate much of American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism and have shaped conservative American Protestant views of “church” and “organized Christianity” to an enormous degree. In addition, dispensational methods of scriptural interpretation have left an indelible mark on millions of American Protestants.

Most people who hold dispensational beliefs assume they are based in the Bible and have ancient roots. But dispensationalism has been around less than 200 years. The father of dispensationalism is John Nelson Darby, a Protestant Irish lawyer who left his successful practice to become an Anglican priest. Born in 1800, Darby was a contemporary of John Henry Newman, the famous leader of the Anglican Oxford movement in the 1830s. But while Newman would later become a Catholic priest and eventually a cardinal, Darby’s studies of Scripture-coupled with a disenchantment with mainstream Christian churches-led him to develop the idea of a “true church” and the apostasy of the established churches, especially the Catholic Church. He believed this true church was spiritual in character and should have no involvement in earthly affairs. He wrote that “the church is properly heavenly, in its calling and relationship with Christ, forming no part of the course of events on earth. . . . Our calling is on high. Events are on earth” (quoted by Harold Bloom in The American Religion, 22).

In 1827 Darby left the Anglican priesthood and by 1831 was among the leaders of the Plymouth Brethren, a non-denominational movement which denounced mainline Christianity. He began to teach that the true church would need to be removed from the earth in order to make way for the completion of God’s dealings with the Jews. He named this secret removal of the church the Rapture. This belief was something completely new in Christianity. No previous Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant, had ever proposed or taught such an thing.

Darby created a timeline that divided history into “dispensations,” either six or seven in number. These indicated various ages in which God dealt with humans in distinct ways. Dispensations were “administrations” through which God tested humans and proved their utter sinfulness before him. According to Darby’s scheme we live in the dispensation of the Church, which began during the ministry of Paul. For Darby the Church forms a “parenthesis” between the dispensation of the Gentiles (before Christ) and the coming dispensation of the Kingdom. It is an era of grace in which the rejected Messiah is building up his heavenly people, the Christians. Meanwhile, God’s real issue in human history is with his earthly people, the Israelites. The Rapture will be the necessary removal of the heavenly people from the world so that God’s work with the earthly people might be finished.

This all eliminates the need to 'take up your cross and follow Him.' Dallas Theological Seminary is the bastion of dispensationalism as is Biola, Azusa Pacific, and a myriad of other evangelical colleges and Seminary's.

 

[Campion]

Did any hold to the pre trib viewpoint before darby though?

No, he invented the fable of a rapture whereby a select group of people get removed via a quasi-second coming of Christ in order to escape suffering.

"...Finally, by means of an innovative theological exegesis, he [John Nelson Darby] formulated the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture of the Church, the belief that those who truly constitute the body of elect Christianity would be removed prior to the period of cosmic wrath known as the Great Tribulation.” Gary Lynn Nebeker, The Hope of Heavenly Glory in John Nelson Darby, pp. 35-36

Apart from this belief being absent in Scripture and Christian history, a clear indication of this fable's fallaciousness is the attempt to remove suffering from Christianity.

Suffering is the rule of Christianity, not the exception. There is no other way.

Man is saved BY the cross, not from it.

 

[Walter]

No, he invented the fable of a rapture whereby a select group of people get removed via a quasi-second coming of Christ in order to escape suffering.

"...Finally, by means of an innovative theological exegesis, he [John Nelson Darby] formulated the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture of the Church, the belief that those who truly constitute the body of elect Christianity would be removed prior to the period of cosmic wrath known as the Great Tribulation.” Gary Lynn Nebeker, The Hope of Heavenly Glory in John Nelson Darby, pp. 35-36

Apart from this belief being absent in Scripture and Christian history, a clear indication of this fable's fallaciousness is the attempt to remove suffering from Christianity.

Suffering is the rule of Christianity, not the exception. There is no other way.

Man is saved BY the cross, not from it.

Kind of late in the day to be formulating new Christian doctrine if you ask me.

 

[Campion]

Kind of late in the day to be formulating new Christian doctrine if you ask me.

Agreed and my favorite is all these adherents of it actually putting down dates But for me the worst part of the fable is its desire to remove suffering from the life of the Christian. It offers a false hope that says don't worry, you can avoid suffering.

Christianity lives in the constant shadow of the cross. Sanctification involves suffering (cf. Romans 5:3-5) and anyone offering you a means to avoid it is offering you a false hope apart from the cross.

Suffering is the rule of Christianity, not the exception. There is no other way.

 

[Walter]

Agreed and my favorite is all these adherents of it actually putting down dates But for me the worst part of the fable is its desire to remove suffering from the life of the Christian. It offers a false hope that says don't worry, you can avoid suffering.

Christianity lives in the constant shadow of the cross. Sanctification involves suffering (cf. Romans 5:3-5) and anyone offering you a means to avoid it is offering you a false hope apart from the cross.

Suffering is the rule of Christianity, not the exception. There is no other way.

Despite the popular theology of our day, Christians should not expect to get out of experiencing the tribulation or the end times. Nowhere in the Bible does the Lord promise us this.