The Catholic Church

[The Biblicist]

The argument goes if you could earn something from God then God has an obligation to provide it However, since that is not the case Faith is the vehicle which provides righteousness.

That is not his argument at all. There is no "if" in his argument. He is not explaining a possible hypothesis but is defining what works and grace are by their very natures. Works by their very nature cannot be of grace because works always provide a basis for obligation whereas grace always denies any basis for obligation.

Here is the precise problem of the RCC. They define "grace" to include works when Paul denies that can be done (Rom. 11:6) as that is a true Biblical oxymoron:

"if it be of grace then it is NO MORE OF WORKS otherwise grace is NO MORE grace; but if it be of works then it is NO MORE OF GRACE otherwise work is no more works."

Even David noticed this when he said. this is what you miss by taking a verse out of context. The Blessedness which David talks about supports Pauls argument about Faith.

Paul refers to David's word t because of IMPUTATION which he now emphasizes in verses 5-6 just prior to introducing David. Notice it is imputation and non-imputation that characterizes David's words.

The blessedness is based upon IMPUTATION and NON-IMPUTATION as the means to be justified before God as the consequences of faith.

This is a complete repudiation of Rome's vew of justification which is characterized by IMPARTATION instead of IMPUTATION.

Still the audience are Believing Jews so he's using their text to prove his point about faith.

The audiance are the congregations at Rome made up of both Jews and gentiles of which Abraham is BOTH! You are attempting to make a difference when Paul introduces this subject by the words "THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE" in regard to justification between Jews and gentiles before God and Abraham is the proof as he is BOTH a Gentile and one of the fathers of Israel.

The "blessedness" isn't the point of the argument but a support for the argument.

Paul disagrees with you as the very next words after quoting David is not "Cometh this faith" but "cometh this BLESSEDNESS." Furthermore, this "blessedness" is the quintsential essence of what justification is by nature the IMPUTATION of righteousness and the NON-imputation of sin as that is precisely what is essential to JUSTIFY the "ungodly" before God. The "ungodly" man must obtain righteousness and his sins must be remitted or there is no justification. Hence, this "blessedness" is the emphasis and faith is merely the channel "through" which this "blessedness" is accessed by IMPUTATION and NON-IMPUTATION.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Romans 1:18-12:1 is designed to demonstrate the mercies of God in their salvation and it is that mercy that is designed to motivate them to obedience to God.

The whole book of Romans is to call the Roman churches to Obedience which comes by Faith. Pure and simple

The mercy of God is demonstrated in Romans 1:18-3;23 because all men are justly condemned and under the wrath of God because they have violated God's law of righteousness whether it is written on conscience or stone, regardless of the extent of its revelation to them.

Pauls argument is that due to man's sin God's wrath is coming against them. And the Jews and the gentiles are in the same boat. Actually read the Letter!!!!

The mercy of God is demonstrated in Romans 3:24-5:21 because the righteousness of God is provided "freely by grace...through faith" in God's complete provision found in Christ and where sin abounds the grace of God much more abounds

Faith brings about righteousness because it always had. And the Mercy of God in the forgiveness of sins is a result of that faith. Jews have nothing over the Gentiles in regards to this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Romans 1:18-12:1 is designed to demonstrate the mercies of God in their salvation and it is that mercy that is designed to motivate them to obedience to God.

Paul is writing to the Churches in Rome. At that time in Rome Jews and Christians were intermingled as most believed Christianity to be a subset of Judaism. It would be ridiculous to thing Paul was proselatizing the community out side of those he sent his letter to.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is not his argument at all. There is no "if" in his argument. He is not explaining a possible hypothesis but is defining what works and grace are by their very natures. Works by their very nature cannot be of grace because works always provide a basis for obligation whereas grace always denies any basis for obligation.

This is the frustrating part about you. You makes comments like "That is not his argument at all. There is no "if" in his argument. He is not explaining a possible hypothesis but is defining what works and grace are by their very natures" When you don't even understand what I mean by argument which specifically in this case is

A reason or matter for dispute or contention

. An argument is exactly what he's doing.

Here is the precise problem of the RCC. They define "grace" to include works when Paul denies that can be done (Rom. 11:6) as that is a true Biblical oxymoron:

This is the true problem you don't even know how the Catholics view Grace. Catholics don't include works in Grace. Grace is the supernatural infusion of the divine life into the Christian thus making them able to do works. So your not even arguing the right argument.

You've missed the whole point of Romans because you've turned it into a smorgishboard of thoughts and applied views which never was apart of the Argument Paul was making.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I had said...

Um, the passage is pretty clear and requires no interpolations to support my point:
""buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Col 2:12.

From grammatical considerations alone, one notes that IN BAPTISM we are buried and raised with Christ THROUGH FAITH.

That is not what it says.

It's EXACTLY what it says!

We are buried with him in baptism and in baptism we are raised with him. However, "through faith" has for its object "in the working of God" not "in baptism."

So? This doesn't change at all the point I'm trying to make. The passage states one is buried and raised with christ IN BAPTISM--in other words, Baptism is the OCCASION that we are buried/risen with Christ THROUGH FAITH, not the object of that faith

In other words, the object of our faith corresponds with the act of baptism. What we do in baptism corresponds to the object of our faith which is God's revelation of his resurrection as preached in the gospel.

Now, here you're just making stuff up that's not in the passage.

In other words what we beleived in - God's power to rasie him from the dead is what baptism identifies us with.

Well, I agree that WHAT we believe in (have faith in) is Christ and God's power to raise him from the dead, and BAPTISM is the expression of that belief/trust--the occasion of our burial and resurrection with Him through faith (not just a visual aid that is chronological disconnected to some other burial/resurrection with Christ that allegedly takes place apart from Baptism)

That is precisely why Peter says, "the like figure" whereunto baptism also now saves us.

That is not what Peter is saying. Noah and his family BEING SAVED THROUGH WATER (ie being saved at the same time the flood waters are covering the earth) is an OT 'type' for baptism. Baptism is the 'antitype' (which is the more accurate translation of the Greek word), or fulfillment of the 'type' (Noah being saved through water), and Peter states it is this 'antitype' (baptism) that now saves. That's how the language of type/antitype works. Peter does NOT state that baptism is figure/type/symbol of something else that saves, but itself saves. That is, it is the occasion that God saves us by the resurrection of His Son (since, per Paul, baptism is WHEN we are buried/raised with Christ).

This is in a context of the Old Testament CEREMONIAL laws which were done away becuase they provided only a SHADOW and not the very substance of salvation that was fulfilled in the life and death of Christ on the cross. New Testament ordinances look back as well as forward to the Second coming of Christ and only provide a SHADOW of the same substance yet to come.

But you are making the mistake of confusing/equating the efficacy of OT ceremonial laws (which you rightly state are shadows) with the 'ordinances' of the New Testament and thus supposing the latter are only shadows as well. Nowhere in the NT does Christ or His apostles make this equation. In the NT, Baptism IS when we are buried/risen with Christ (Romans 6 Colossians 2), put on Christ (Gal 3), and that which saves us by the resurrection of Christ (1 Pet 3)--nowhere does it say it is only a picture or shadow of those realities. Likewise, Communion IS the partaking of Christ's Body and Blood--nowhere does it say it's only a picture or shadow of the same.

I had also said previously...


Yet you ignore two things: (1) the point I made above that bibical saving faith is not workless; (2) the works Paul is opposing in this passage are the works of Torah, by the which the Judaizers thought they could be justified (whereas the Torah shows how we all fall short)

To which you responded:

Dealing with your last point -He is dealing with PRE-Torah type good works as he is dealing with the "works" of Abraham (Rom. 4:1-6) four to five hundred years before the Torah was ever written.

Paul during this extended argument with the Judaizers is addressing whether or not Gentiles had to keep the Torah--particularly circumcision, food laws, etc. He brings up Abraham as an example of man who was justified before doing any of these works of the law. Given the Law was given to show how man fall's short, one may (and should) reasonably conclude that Paul would extend these 'works' to include any activities that one may 'boast' about as somehow putting God in one's debt (Rom 4:2-4) and thus trying to justify himself thereby. BUT this passage does NOT say anything about the necessity of works which express/accompany genuine faith---if it did it would contradict not only James 2 but Paul himself (ex Romans 2:5-11, Gal 5:6). Nor does it do anything to contravene the role baptism and communion play as expressions of our faith in (and thus means of our union with) Christ that Paul teaches elsewhere. And neither baptism nor communion are the occasion of 'boasting' but are the divinely ordained means by which we are united to and sustained by Christ through faith.

Dealing with your first point - He is denying that PRE-Torah works by Abraham are inclusive in believing - "worketh not BUT beleiveth" - v. 5

(See above comment)

Thus, in regards to your confident allegation that Romans 4 somehow 'explicitly' ruled out sacraments, I stated...

It does no such thing. This passage explicitly denies the necessity of CIRCUMCISION

You forget that the CCC claims that circumcision is to be viewed on the same level as baptism in regard to sacramental value and therefore, to deny the necessity of circumcision is to deny the value of sacramentalism in conveying justifying grace.

I am not sure what CCC is supposed to mean (I am guessing, perhaps, the catechism of the Catholic church), and am not really concerned with that. The New Testament does not view baptism on the same level as circumcision. Although they are seen as analgous (as both being the iniation signs of their respective covenants), they are not exactly the same in their efficacy. Just as the Old Covenant, being a 'shadow', is inferior to the New, so circumcision is inferior to baptism.

He systematically denies that justification by faith:

1. Includes Pre-torah kind of good works as Abraham would not have any basis to "glory" in bad works - Rom. 4:1-6

Only has the material ground for justifying one self before God. Paul does not deny that works are a necessary expression of a lively faith (Gal 5:6, Heb 11)

2. Includes ordinances - Rom. 4:9-11

Only circumcision is mentioned--not sacraments in general let alone baptism or communion in particular.

3. Includes Torah works of the law - Rom. 4:12-15

Obviously

4. Includes the believer's personal contributions - Rom. 4:16-21 - but is obtained solely by the promise and power of God - JUSTIFYING faith is defined as receiving and resting in his promise and power

If by 'personal contributions' you mean anything a person believes to be contributing to the meritorious ground of his justification, then 'YES'. If you mean any thing a person DOES in response to the gospel then, 'NO', because that would include FAITH (TRUST)--working through love (Gal 5:6)--and REPENTANCE, both of which are required for salvation (instrumentally) but neither of which contributes to the meritorious ground of our justification.

In conclusion, nothing you said warrants overthrowing the plain meaning of Colossians 2:12 (or other baptism passages for that matter) given that your arguments are based on a faulty interpretation of Romans 4 in particular and on an incorrect understanding of faith/works in general.

 

[Yeshua1]

Apostle peter states very clearly that water baptism is a TYPE of what has happened to us, that the ark of God potreys the death of Christ, and THAT is what saves us, NOT the ceremonial washing away of the flesh, but the inward work the Lord does to us that is signified by the water!

water itself has NO redeeming properties, but it DOES show us the object of it, its symbolic representation of death of christ, us being united in Him, and raised to eternal life with him!

That is what baptism points towards, but does NOT give us that!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Apostle peter states very clearly that water baptism is a TYPE of what has happened to us, that the ark of God potreys the death of Christ, and THAT is what saves us, NOT the ceremonial washing away of the flesh, but the inward work the Lord does to us that is signified by the water!

water itself has NO redeeming properties, but it DOES show us the object of it, its symbolic representation of death of christ, us being united in Him, and raised to eternal life with him!

That is what baptism points towards, but does NOT give us that!

Peter Also clearly says that you must repent and be baptized to be saved. Therefore a type is not only a sign but a seal.

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter Also clearly says that you must repent and be baptized to be saved. Therefore a type is not only a sign but a seal.

Where did he EVER say that?

the bible states from lips of the Saviour that the ONLY work required by G
od to do is to belive on/in the name of the One that He has sent!

here is a GOOD link to proper understanding Acts 2:38:

www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/bapsav06.htm

Does Water Baptism Save?

A Biblical Refutation of Baptismal Regeneration







"Forgiveness is received at the point of repentance/faith, not at the point of water baptism. Those who are not forgiven should not be baptized. They are yet in their sins. One simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”



The real question centers on the meaning of the preposition eis (translated "for" in the KJV). It is possible to show examples where eis can mean "because of" (Matthew 12:41--"at") or "on the basis of" or "with reference to," and all of these are certainly grammatically possible. However, it seems more natural and more probable that in Acts 2:38 this preposition indicates purpose or result. Peter was preaching to unsaved Jews who were guilty of crucifying Christ. They desperately needed the forgiveness of sins (as we all do). Peter was telling them what they must do in order to have forgiveness (see Acts 2:37---"What shall we do?").



The translations seem to support this meaning. The KJV, NASB, Amplified, NEB, RSV all give the rendering "for." The Revised Version has "unto." The NIV has "so that your sins will be forgiven" (although in later editions this was changed to "for"). You can see how a person believing in baptismal regeneration could easily use all of these translations to support his view.



The lexicons seem to support this meaning. Arndt & Gingrich say that the preposition here denotes purpose ("in order to") and they render the phrase: "for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven." Thayer has a similar rendering "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (his discussion under baptizo). Thus those who believe that a man is saved by water baptism would gladly appeal to these authorities.



Acts 3:19 seems to support this meaning. This is the very next sermon that Peter gives, and again he tells the Jews what they must do to have forgiveness. We would expect that what Peter told the Jews in Acts 3 would be similar to what he told them in Acts 2. In both cases he was preaching to unsaved Jews under similar circumstances. In Acts 3:19 once again the preposition eis is used, and the KJV translates it "so that your sins might be blotted out." Of course, those who teach baptismal regeneration do not make much of this verse because water baptism is not even mentioned.



The grammarians also concede that the preposition may be translated "for the purpose of' or "in order that" (see Dana & Mantey, p. 104). Those such as A.T.Robinson and Julius Mantey who render it “because of” or “on the basis of” do so primarily on the basis of theology, not grammar. They suggest a rare usage for the term in order to make the verse not teach baptismal regeneration. But are we really forced to depart from what seems to be the more natural and more common rendering?"

 

[The Biblicist]

I had said...



So?

So, baptism as a SYMBOL accomplishes the same thing (identification with his death, burial and resurrection) in keeping with the PREVIOUS profession of faith of the candidate. In baptism there is public identification with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.

This doesn't change at all the point I'm trying to make.

It most certainly does. Rome demands that baptism communicates justifying grace and demands that in baptism the candidate is asking for the church to bestow it through baptism which is an article of faith and an act of faith. Paul is not teaching that hocus pocus nonsense but rather identifies faith with the gospel proclaimation of what God did in resurrection of Christ.

Furthermore the immediate subsequent context is dealing precisely with the Old Testament "shadows" versus New Testament substance which is found in the Person and work of Jesus Christ not in the CEREMONIAL shadow.

Like circumcision in the Old Covenant, baptism in the New covenant is FIGURE ("like figure" - 1 Pet. 3:21) and thus a SHADOW not the very substance.

The passage states one is buried and raised with christ IN BAPTISM--in other words, Baptism is the OCCASION that we are buried/risen with Christ THROUGH FAITH, not the object of that faith

The EXTERNAL occassion but not the INTERNAL occassion as that is "faith in the operation of God" as proclaimed in the gospel and confessed by the candidate BEFORE baptism.

Well, I agree that WHAT we believe in (have faith in) is Christ and God's power to raise him from the dead, and BAPTISM is the expression of that belief/trust

THAT is Paul's point and that is my point exactly!

--the occasion of our burial and resurrection with Him through faith (not just a visual aid that is chronological disconnected to some other burial/resurrection with Christ that allegedly takes place apart from Baptism)

Paul proves that circumcison is "CHRONOLOGICALLY DISCONNECTED" from justification by faith in Abraham as he already "had" that "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" and "NOT IN CIRUCMISION" thus a CHRONLOGICAL DISCONNECT. The same is true in baptism. Baptism is a CHRONOLOGICAL DISCONNECT from justification by faith which occurs INTERNALLY "with the heart man believeth" (Rom. 10:8) BEFORE he professes it with his mouth which is the necessary chronological PRECEDENT to be even considered as a candidate for baptism.

That is not what Peter is saying. Noah and his family BEING SAVED THROUGH WATER (ie being saved at the same time the flood waters are covering the earth) is an OT 'type' for baptism.

Wrong! They were already in the ark before one drop of water fell - thus symbolically IN CHRIST before the water.

Baptism is the 'antitype' (which is the more accurate translation of the Greek word), or fulfillment of the 'type' (Noah being saved through water), and Peter states it is this 'antitype' (baptism) that now saves.

WRong again! The context shows there is a comparison being made and thus "anti" connnected with "tupos" in this context means a CORRESPONDING TYPE. You admitted that Noah, the ark and the flood were types in the Old Testament. Likewise, baptism is a CORRESPONDING TYPE in the New Testament.

They were saved by water FIGURATIVELY because LITERALLY they were saved FROM THE LITERAL WATER! Likewise the believer is saved by baptism FIGURAITVELY becuase it is Christ literal resurrection that literally saves them.

Literal water washes away literal filth, but this is a denial that baptism washes away METAPHORICAL filth of sin but rather baptism is the RESPONSE of a conscience ALREADY CLEANSED BY FAITH in the death, burial and resurrection of Jeseus Christ.

But you are making the mistake of confusing/equating the efficacy of OT ceremonial laws (which you rightly state are shadows) with the 'ordinances' of the New Testament and thus supposing the latter are only shadows as well.

Wrong again! The language of redemption has always accompanied the "shadows" because the very purpose of a shadow/type/figure is to express the truth it was designed to picture. These types were designed to picture salvation and therefore the langauge of salvation accompanies them. The same is true with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

This is precisely why the Jews believed circumcision actually saved and that other ordinances actually save because the langauge of redemption accompanied them. They were to offer up sacrifices "for thy sin" or "for thy cleansing" - not because actual literal cleansing was found in performing the shadow or that the shadow could convey such, but rather it is what the shadow typified, which was to be the object of faith that actually and literally remitted sins (Heb. 10:4).

This is where Rome falls flat on its face and this is the corruption behind sacrmamentalism as they look at the ordinances the very same way the lost Jews looked at the ordinances as literal means of conveying redemptive grace.

nowhere does it say it is only a picture or shadow of those realities[/B]

- "the like FIGURE" - 1 Pet. 3;21; "ye do SHEW...." 1 Cor. 15

I am not sure what CCC is supposed to mean (I am guessing, perhaps, the catechism of the Catholic church),

Correct!

they are seen as analgous (as both being the iniation signs of their respective covenants), they are not exactly the same in their efficacy. Just as the Old Covenant, being a 'shadow', is inferior to the New, so circumcision is inferior to baptism.

Nice try! They are perfectly analogous to each other as "SIGNS" and that is the comparison "FIGURE". Circumcison is a sign of NEW BIRTH while baptism is a sign "figure" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as presented in the gospel.

The only sense that circumcision is inferior to baptism is merely perspective as the Old pointed to the first coming of Christ while the new points both backwards and forwards to the second coming of Christ.

If by 'personal contributions' you mean anything a person believes to be contributing to the meritorious ground of his justification, then 'YES'. If you mean any thing a person DOES in response to the gospel then, 'NO', because that would include FAITH (TRUST)--working through love (Gal 5:6)--and REPENTANCE, both of which are required for salvation (instrumentally) but neither of which contributes to the meritorious ground of our justification.

Not in regard to justification before God and not according to Paul's illustration designed to define justifying faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:21-25).

Tell me what either Abraham or Sarah contributed to the birth of Isaac as illustrated by Abraham in Romans 4:16-21? I will tell you what they contributed and it is one word that is said twice by Paul and it is the word "DEAD" - read it!

He defines justifying faith as simply RECEPTION of God's Word of Promise performed by God's Power - v. 21

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Where did he EVER say that?

Acts 2

When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

the bible states from lips of the Saviour that the ONLY work required by God to do is to belive on/in the name of the One that He has sent!

Oh is that so? Hmmmm. a Misapplication of John 6. Certainly, believing in Jesus means do as he asks does it not? Such as Matthew 25

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ ... “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. ”

Also note 2 Cor.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

and Rev 20

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

Lets look at what else John 6 says

Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Acts 2



Oh is that so? Hmmmm. a Misapplication of John 6. Certainly, believing in Jesus means do as he asks does it not? Such as Matthew 25 Also note 2 Cor. and Rev 20 Lets look at what else John 6 says

Great White Throne judgement is for UNSAVED, as their good works will factor in ONLY to the degree of punishment rendered by God unto them, more accountible to him, more punishment...

matthew 25 refers to nations, how the lord will judge them based upon how they treated his people in last days, and he will assgn their lot in the Kingdom Christ rules over accordingly!

John 6:29
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

So no works related to salvation implied there!


So would appear that the verses that you are lookingto support your case actually work against you!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So, baptism as a SYMBOL accomplishes the same thing (identification with his death, burial and resurrection) in keeping with the PREVIOUS profession of faith of the candidate. In baptism there is public identification with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.

Hey, clear your PM box; I want to send you a PM!

 

[The Biblicist]

Hey, clear your PM box; I want to send you a PM!

Ok it is cleared out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Great White Throne judgement is for UNSAVED, as their good works will factor in ONLY to the degree of punishment rendered by God unto them, more accountible to him, more punishment...

There is only one judgement not multiple judgements as spelled out by the whole Darby Rapture view.

matthew 25 refers to nations, how the lord will judge them based upon how they treated his people in last days, and he will assgn their lot in the Kingdom Christ rules over accordingly!

Matthew 25 is not a judgment for the Nations but for individual believers. Look at the Context. Groups of people who believe they were following the Lord never did anything for anyone other than themselves and so were judged accordingly. Your next point doesn't play out in the text. If you are correct and the sheep and the Goats verse I recorded is about assigning their lot in heaven then you have a problem with verese 46 showing biblical language regarding sending people to hell based on their not having done anything for their fellow human beings despite call Jesus "Lord".

John 6:29
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”So no works related to salvation implied there!

First of all participating in the Eucharist isn't a work 2nd of all is thats not all John 6 says. To believe is to act on a belief. You don't really believe if you don't act on it. Really simple consept. We can see that clearly displayed in Jesus discourse in matthew 25. Note John 6 also discusses that Jesus himself is that Heavenly manna which you must partake in the New Covenant. Jesus speaks at length about this in John chp 6. A lot of his disciples left him because they understood exactly what he was saying and didn't want to accept it.

So would appear that the verses that you are lookingto support your case actually work against you!

So it actually appears that you took one verse out of the whole context to support an untenable position.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is only one judgement not multiple judgements as spelled out by the whole Darby Rapture view.

Christians have already passed from death unto life!
We will face the Bhema seat of Chrisyt at death, that will be a judgement unto how much/what quality of good works done upon earth, NOT to salvation!

lost will suffer the great White throne Judgement, NO saved persons there!

Matthew 25 is not a judgment for the Nations but for individual believers. Look at the Context. Groups of people who believe they were following the Lord never did anything for anyone other than themselves and so were judged accordingly. Your next point doesn't play out in the text. If you are correct and the sheep and the Goats verse I recorded is about assigning their lot in heaven then you have a problem with verese 46 showing biblical language regarding sending people to hell based on their not having done anything for their fellow human beings despite call Jesus "Lord".


First of all participating in the Eucharist isn't a work 2nd of all is thats not all John 6 says. To believe is to act on a belief. You don't really believe if you don't act on it. Really simple consept. We can see that clearly displayed in Jesus discourse in matthew 25. Note John 6 also discusses that Jesus himself is that Heavenly manna which you must partake in the New Covenant. Jesus speaks at length about this in John chp 6. A lot of his disciples left him because they understood exactly what he was saying and didn't want to accept it.

Jesus said that the nations will be judged by HOW they treated his peoples in last days...

So it actually appears that you took one verse out of the whole context to support an untenable position.

not at all!

You strive SO HARD to strain RCC doctrines from out of the texts, that you miss the intended message and points!

 

[The Biblicist]

There is only one judgement not multiple judgements as spelled out by the whole Darby Rapture view.


Matthew 25 is not a judgment for the Nations but for individual believers. Look at the Context. Groups of people who believe they were following the Lord never did anything for anyone other than themselves and so were judged accordingly. Your next point doesn't play out in the text. If you are correct and the sheep and the Goats verse I recorded is about assigning their lot in heaven then you have a problem with verese 46 showing biblical language regarding sending people to hell based on their not having done anything for their fellow human beings despite call Jesus "Lord".

The glorification of the body occurs at the resurrection from the grave and reception of the living to Christ "in the air" before He comes to earth (1 Cor. 15:51-57; 1 Thes. 4:13-18) and thus before standing before Christ on earth or any other time for judgement of their works.

Hence, they do not stand before the Lord to be judged by their works to determine their suitability for heaven or hell because they are already made suitable for heaven. Second they stand before him not merely without any consequences of sin in their whole person but without any sin at all because it has been previously judged in the Person of Christ (Jn. 5:24) and so there is no future possibility of coming into judgment in regard to death and life as they already have "passed from death to life" at the point of conversion.

Third, the consequence of standing before the Lord to be judged "according to their works" is not heaven and hell but VARIOUS DEGREES OF REWARDS in addition to an already sinless glorified body.

Hence, they are ALREADY GLORIFIED in vindication of the finished and perfect works of Christ in their behalf, whereas their IMPERFECT "works" are only for rewards IN HEAVEN for what Christ performed through them.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

not at all!

You strive SO HARD to strain RCC doctrines from out of the texts, that you miss the intended message and points!

In fact it is the other way round. You aren't following the first exegeting rule. Read the plain simple language of the text.

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Here the Nations are gathered together as one big crowd. Nations in this context is every people types. Next he seperates people individually and places them into two groups. right (sheep) and left (goats).

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ ...40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

to those individuals in the right group he blesses them and tells them to enter into eternal life and he said because it was what they did for others.

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

To those on the left he sends away from his presence because they didn't do anything for anyone else. He actually sends them to hell.

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life

This is the plain reading of the text. There is no stretching anything. Just letting the bible speak for itself.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The glorification of the body occurs at the resurrection from the grave and reception of the living to Christ "in the air" before He comes to earth (1 Cor. 15:51-57; 1 Thes. 4:13-18) and thus before standing before Christ on earth or any other time for judgement of their works.

Hence, they do not stand before the Lord to be judged by their works to determine their suitability for heaven or hell because they are already made suitable for heaven. Second they stand before him not merely without any consequences of sin in their whole person but without any sin at all because it has been previously judged in the Person of Christ (Jn. 5:24) and so there is no future possibility of coming into judgment in regard to death and life as they already have "passed from death to life" at the point of conversion.

Third, the consequence of standing before the Lord to be judged "according to their works" is not heaven and hell but VARIOUS DEGREES OF REWARDS in addition to an already sinless glorified body.

Hence, they are ALREADY GLORIFIED in vindication of the finished and perfect works of Christ in their behalf, whereas their IMPERFECT "works" are only for rewards IN HEAVEN for what Christ performed through them.

That is your interpretation of those verses and certainly has nothing to do with Matthew 25 discussion of the sheep and the goats. Everybody gets judged. Certainly there is the particular aspect of judgment and the general aspect of Judgement. However, I want to point out an error in your review of 1 Cor 15

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[h]
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Certainly everyone will be raised with their immortal bodies but read and re-read that passage and you'll find nothing about "in the air" You added that to the passage. You've combined 1 thes 4 and made one new verse. But in both cases we are raised in our immortal bodies as we go to meet him but this is after our particular aspect of our judgement. In both cases 1 cor and 1 thes is not just before the Tribulation but at the consumation of things. "in the Air" is where I think the Judgement occures.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, I want to point out an error in your review of 1 Cor 15 Certainly everyone will be raised with their immortal bodies but read and re-read that passage and you'll find nothing about "in the air" You added that to the passage. You've combined 1 thes 4 and made one new verse..

First, I never merged any scriptures to create any new verse. I made a statement and provide two different texts to support that statement (1 Cor. 15:51-57; 1 Thes. 4:13-18).

Second, the resurrection of the body of the righteous is the subject of 1 Cor. 15:51-57 and so it is of 1 Thes. 4:16-18 and I quote:

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There are not TWO different resurrections of the RIGHTEOUS but only ONE and the ONE in 1 Cor. 15:51-57 is the SAME ONE in 1 Thes. 1:14-17.

Third, the living righteous are not transformed or translated until those whom Christ brings with him are FIRST resurrected and received back into the clouds while Christ is "in the air" as that is where the "clouds" exist.

Fourth, when the living are translated in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 they are "CAUGHT UP" "IN THE CLOUDS" "IN THE AIR."

You need to read things better.

Finally, that is proof their destination was already settled and determined BEFORE they stand before the Lord in regard to their "works" and that the rewards for their works have nothing to do with determining heaven or hell just and therefore the judgement of their works has nothing to do with determining heaven or hell as the judgement of God upon Christ is FINISHED and has already determined their destination (Jn. 5:24).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, I never merged any scriptures to create any new verse. I made a statement and provide two different texts to support that statement (1 Cor. 15:51-57; 1 Thes. 4:13-18).

Second, the resurrection of the body of the righteous is the subject of 1 Cor. 15:51-57 and so it is of 1 Thes. 4:16-18 and I quote:

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

There are not TWO different resurrections of the RIGHTEOUS but only ONE and the ONE in 1 Cor. 15:51-57 is the SAME ONE in 1 Thes. 1:14-17.

Third, the living righteous are not transformed or translated until those whom Christ brings with him are FIRST resurrected and received back into the clouds while Christ is "in the air" as that is where the "clouds" exist.

Fourth, when the living are translated in 1 Cor. 15:51-52 they are "CAUGHT UP" "IN THE CLOUDS" "IN THE AIR."

You need to read things better.

Finally, that is proof their destination was already settled and determined BEFORE they stand before the Lord in regard to their "works" and that the rewards for their works have nothing to do with determining heaven or hell just and therefore the judgement of their works has nothing to do with determining heaven or hell as the judgement of God upon Christ is FINISHED and has already determined their destination (Jn. 5:24).

I never said that there were two resurrections of the righteous. I said there as a particular aspect to Judgement and a general aspect to Judgement. I believe in one primary judgement and one ressurection at the consumation of all things. I believe the righteous are raised to life to the general aspect of Judgement which happens in the air and I believe the unrighteous are also raised at the same time to the general aspect of Judgement to their final sentencing. The hope for the righteous by which we are to encourage "each other with these words" is the promise of eternal life. Never the less we are all judged. We don't by pass judgement. And in fact our righteousness is a witness and a condemnation of those who are wicked at that judgement. But you and I all our deeds will be laid out every secret thing will be brought to light. And it will be judged. However, having believed on Jesus though this happens we still have the certainty of eternal life as long as we've kept the faith to the very end. However, those verse you quoted aren't supportive of a rapture before the tribulation as you may suppose.