Legs of Iron, part 5

The Scriptures identify the transition from Legs to Feet.
The Scriptures identify the transition from Legs to Feet.

In this series, we have been discussing the dating of John’s vision on Patmos based on the scriptural evidence. Although Irenæaus seems to place the vision at the end of the first century, other early writers of his era place it before Paul’s epistles and even as early as emperor Claudius, as we discussed in Part 1. While the external testimony is inconsistent and contradictory, we believe the date of the vision can be found based on the internal testimony, especially in light of the Danielic nature of the angelic narrator’s language in Revelation 17:10.

Last week we addressed what we consider to be a major weakness in one commonly held historicist interpretation of the “seven kings” of Revelation 17:10. In what has been called the “generally received Protestant interpretation” the “seven kings” are taken to refer to seven “forms of government” (E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98), an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent. Daniel’s narrators had informed him of successions of kings and successions of empires, but never of a succession of forms of government. When Daniel, like John, was informed of his relative position in the eschatological timeline, it was in terms of a succession of kings (Daniel 11:1-3), not in terms of a succession of “forms of government.” We see no compelling reason why Revelation 17:10 should be interpreted any differently. John’s current place in the eschatological timeline was related to him in terms of a succession of actual rulers, just as Daniel’s had been.

This week we will highlight a second, but less obvious, way in which the “generally received Protestant interpretation” departs from authentically Danielic eschatology. The second problem with the traditional historicist interpretation is in the actual period of the dominion of the Fourth Beast. The succession of empires is described in terms of their dominion over the earth, and as each successive empire rises and falls, its period of relevance regarding earthly dominion, comes and goes with it. The “generally received Protestant interpretation” of Revelation 17:10 represents a significant—and unwarranted—departure from that pattern.

Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 11 speak of a succession of world empires, or superpowers. The Lord “hath made [Nebuchadnezzar] ruler over them all” (Daniel 2:38). The succeeding empires “shall bear rule over all the earth” (Daniel 2:39) The fourth “breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things” (Daniel 2:40) In Daniel 7:23, the fourth kingdom “shall devour the whole earth.” In Daniel 8, the Ram is so powerful that “no beasts might stand before him” (Daniel 8:4), and then the He-goat was so powerful that “there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand” (Daniel 8:7). In Daniel 11, the Greek king “shall rule with great dominion” (Daniel 11:3). These are world superpowers being described, and Rome does not become an empire or a world superpower until after Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece have all run their course as empires.

In one sense, the “scarlet coloured beast” represents the Roman superpower that was currently dominant at the time of the vision, for one of the beast’s kings “is now” reigning (Revelation 17:10), and the woman on the beast “is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18). It is a vision of a contemporary Roman superpower ruled from the city of Rome. In another sense, its form also reflects a Danielic figuration related to the dominance of the preceding empires of the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard, for its total number of heads and horns is equivalent to the number of heads and horns of Daniel 7, and in that sense, it is “the beast that was” (Revelation 17:8). In yet another sense, it also prefigures a future manifestation of antichrist when the ten kings of Revelation 17:12 would finally have their kingdoms and the beast would finally manifest in the form of the preceding empires of the Lion, the Bear and the Leopard, as depicted in Revelation 13:1. But those kings “have received no kingdom as yet” (Revelation 17:12), and in that sense it was still yet to be (Revelation 17:8).

It is that future manifestation that occupies the bulk of the narrative in Revelation 17, for in his explanation, the angel invests most of his words on it—the whole world wondering after the beast (17:8), the ten kings aligning with the beast (17:12-13), and giving their kingdom to it (17:17) and turning against the woman (17:16) making war with the beast against the Lamb (17:14).

We may link the future manifestation of the beast of Revelation 17 to the sea beast of Revelation 13 by the fact that all the world—they “whose names are not written in the book of life”—is said to wonder after both (Revelation 17:8, 13:3,8). Clearly these two are references to one antichrist, after whom the whole world shall wonder. We may also link the sea beast of Revelation 13 to the Little Horn of Daniel 7 by the fact that both are given mouths speaking great things, and power to wage war against the saints (Revelation 13:5,7; Daniel 7:8:21).  Clearly these two are references to one antichrist which shall speak arrogantly and wear out the saints, and clearly the Danielic chronology was about to undergo a major eschatological transition that would set the stage for his rise.

We emphasize the beast’s former dominance manifested through the preceding empires (it “was”), its current dominance manifested in the Roman empire (it “is”), and its future dominance in relation to the sea beast of Revelation 13:1-2 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 (it “shall ascend”), in order to highlight its overall Danielicity. Daniel consistently described the beasts and horns by their periods of relevance and dominance, and John is clearly doing the same thing. To the degree that the scarlet beast “was,” it “was” in the form of the dominion of the preceding empires or Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece, as we noted in Part 2. To the degree that the scarlet beast “is,” it “is” in the form of the currently reigning Roman empire. To the degree that the scarlet beast “shall ascend,” it “shall ascend” in the form of  the composite beast of Revelation 13 in the period of the dominion of the ten horns.

In the Danielic chronology, there is the period of Babylon, the period of Medo-Persia, the period of Greece, the period of Rome in its three phases—Legs, Feet, Toes—and then the period of Antichrist. Under no circumstances does Daniel deal with any individual beast’s distant, ancient genesis prior to its period of relevance or dominance. In fact Daniel completely ignores the ancient origins of each individual empire prior to its significance on the world stage. But what Elliott has called the “generally received Protestant interpretation” does with the Fourth Empire something that Daniel never did. It requires that we establish a chronology based on the distant, ancient origins of the Roman empire before it was an empire. As we shall see, this is an approach that is completely foreign to Danielic eschatology.

The dissonance that the “generally received Protestant interpretation” introduces to Danielic eschatology may be seen by comparing it to Daniel’s own handling of each empire.  Nebuchadnezzar was himself the son of Nabopolassar who ruled Babylonia from 626-605 B.C.. Yet Daniel makes no mention of Nabopolassar, and instead makes Nebuchadnezzar Babylon’s first king, the head of gold (Daniel 2:38) with his rise to power in 605 B.C.. The Medes came to power between 616 and 605 B.C. while Babylon was dominant, and yet Daniel makes no case for their relevance prior to Babylon’s fall, and makes Darius the Mede their first king (Daniel 5:28, 31). There were Persian kings before Cyrus the Great, who was himself the grandson of King Cyrus I of the Achaemenid dynasty dating as far back as 652 B.C.. But as Gabriel explained, the Persians “came up last” (Daniel 8:3), and Cyrus the Great himself has no relevance until 538 B.C. when he conquered the Medes (Isaiah 44:28-45:1). As far as Daniel is concerned, Cyrus the Great was the first king of Persia. Alexander the Great was actually Alexander III, the son of Philip II of Macedon, who was himself part of a long line of Greek kings dating back to 496 B.C., but Gabriel refers to Alexander as the “first king” of Grecia (Daniel 8:21).

As Daniel notes, Alexander’s empire was then divided four ways (Daniel 7:6; 8:8, 22; 11:4) and as we showed in The Single Frame Hypothesis, the period of relevance of the four kingdoms that came up after Alexander—North, South, East and West—ends in 48 B.C. with the death of Pompey. Pompey was a Roman general whose only significance in Daniel 11 is that the Roman Republic—not yet an empire—had occupied the Northern territory of Alexander’s divided empire, becoming the de facto “king of the north” from an Alexandrian perspective. To the end of Daniel 11, the title retains its post-Alexandrian but nonetheless Hellenic significance in regard to the four-way division of Alexander’s empire. Then, immediately before Pompey’s demise, Julius Cæasar crossed the Rubicon, effectively putting an end to the Republic and then took on monarchical Roman powers when he was declared Dictator in Perpetuity four years later. He marks the beginning of the “seven kings” of Revelation 17:10, making him the “first king” of the Fourth Empire.

We review the periods of relevance and dominance of the four succeeding empires and their first kings because their relevance and dominance is always linked to their succession from the declining empire before them, and not to their distant ancient origins. Daniel 2 takes place during the period of Babylonian dominion, and the “head of gold” refers to its first king in a Danielic context, which is Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:38), even though there was another Babylonian king before him. Then the Medes rise and take over the kingdom, making Darius the first king of the Medes in a Danielic context (Daniel 5:31), even though there were other Median kings before him. Then the Persians conquer the Medes, and Cyrus is the first king of Persia in a Danielic context even though there were other Persian kings before him. Then Alexander conquers the Persians, making Alexander “the first king” of Greece in a Danielic context (Daniel 8:21), even though there were many other Greek kings before him. Alexander’s empire is then divided four ways and the complete history of the third empire—its rise and its fall—plays out for us in Daniel 11. The chapter ends with the death of the last “king of the north” in an Alexandrian frame of reference (Daniel 11:4, 45), and then we are immediately introduced to the events particular to the rise of the Fourth Empire:

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” (Daniel 12:1)

The period of the Greeks was finally relegated to the history books, and Rome’s time had come.

Notably, and importantly, Rome’s relevance as the dominant world superpower only manifests in the Scriptures with the complete passing of Greek power and the rise of a Roman imperial monarchy. It is a continuous unfolding of history, starting with Nebuchadnezzar, and reflects a continuity of passing empires. Babylon, then the Medes, then the Persians, then the Greeks, then the four-way division of the Greeks, then the Roman. Of the distant, ancient origins of each individual empire, Daniel has nothing at all to say.

Yet the “generally received Protestant interpretation” as described by Elliott requires that we trace the relevance of the Roman empire to its origins more than a century prior to the birth of king Nebuchadnezzar, a century and a half before the starting point of Danielic eschatology, and a full seven hundred years before the rise of the Roman imperial monarchy of Daniel’s visions. The interpretation has the first six heads of Revelation 17:10 referring to the first six forms of government: Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes and then Emperors, yet a simple inspection of the timeline shows the error of his approach.

Danielic eschatology spans a period that begins with Nebuchadnezzar’s rise in 605 B.C., no earlier. But the period of the Kings of Rome dates to the reign of Romulus who allegedly founded the city in 753 B.C., about 150 years before Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The “scarlet coloured beast” of Revelation 17 is clearly Roman (Revelation 17:9, 18) and its current dominion is clearly significant within its Danielic time span. But the idea of extending Roman relevance and dominion to a period a century and a half before any other reign of any kingdom in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11, seven centuries before its days as a global power, is a concept that is plainly foreign to Danielic eschatology. It makes no sense at all.

What does make sense is that when the angelic narrator described Daniel’s current chronological position in the eschatological timeline, he did so using a description of a succession of kings that was immediately relevant to Daniel:

“Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.” (Daniel 11:1-3)

Thus, when John’s narrator does the same thing, we are hardly left wondering what it must mean. The angelic narrator was describing John’s current chronological position in the eschatological timeline, and he did so using a description of a succession of kings that was immediately relevant to John:

“And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.” (Revelation 17:10)

Therefore, as much as we respect and admire our historicist brethren and forebears—indeed, this writer would not now be a historicist without their labors—we nonetheless do not find the “generally received Protestant interpretation” of Revelation 17:10 to be compelling. Throughout Danielic eschatology, Daniel and his narrators describe for us kings and empires in succession, each empire a succession of kings, each one relevant in its own period of world dominion as it overtakes the preceding empire and then yields to the succeeding empire.

When Daniel clearly heralds the terminus a quo of each successive superpower by the rise of the “first king” in that kingdom’s period of world dominion, it hardly makes sense to shift to a new approach in Revelation by identifying the “first king” of the Roman empire with its first form of government back in the days when Rome was but a tiny, obscure little village on Palatine Hill, a full century and a half before the “head of gold” had manifested, and a full seven centuries before the Fourth Empire “breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things” (Daniel 2:40) and “shall devour the whole earth” (Daniel 7:23). Neither Daniel nor his narrators handled any other empire that way, and there is no Scriptural basis for making the Roman empire the exception.

When Revelation 17:10 is understood the same way Daniel 11:1-3 is—as a succession of actual kings of immediate relevance to the person recording the vision—establishing each visionary’s place in the chronology, a flow of history is allowed to emerge in piecewise continuity. That flow manifests in a continuity of succession not only from Lion, to Bear, to Leopard to Fourth Beast, and not only from Ram to He-Goat, and not only from Gold, to Silver, to Brass, to Iron, to Iron & Clay, but also from Legs to Feet to Toes.

The first king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:38). The first king of the Medes was Darius (Daniel 5:28). The first king of the Persians was Cyrus who came up after the Medes (Daniel 8:3). The first king of the Greeks was Alexander (Daniel 8:7, 11:3). His kingdom was divided four ways, and the last one standing was the “king of the north” as described in Daniel 11:40-45. When “he shall come to his end,” it is the beginning of the “fourth kingdom [which] … subdueth all things” (Daniel 2:40) and “devour the whole earth” (Daniel 7:23), making Julius Cæsar the “first king” of the Romans. That is where we mark the beginning of the Fourth Empire, the Legs of Iron.

The Fourth Empire is then segmented into three periods—Legs, Feet and Toes—and Cæsar was the beginning of the Legs. By John’s day, five kings of the Iron Legs period had come and gone, Nero was now reigning, and only one more would briefly follow before the transition to the Feet of Iron & Clay, as we noted in Part 3. That period of Iron & Clay was to be fraught with eschatological significance, for during the Feet, the kingdom of heaven would be transferred to the saints, the Stone would strike the Fourth Empire, breaking it into the fragments from which the Antichrist would rise. That critical flow from Legs to Feet to Toes is lost when the “generally received Protestant interpretation” takes the “seven kings” to refer to seven “forms of government,” and places the beginning of the Roman Empire seven centuries prior to its rise in Danielic eschatology.

We will continue on this theme next week in summary fashion, and conclude the series.

232 thoughts on “Legs of Iron, part 5”

  1. Absolutely amazing flow. I have my bible in hand just nodding in agreement thru the whole article. As with your other articles, very well reasearched and detailed. The chronology between John and Daniel is staggering. The infalible word of God. Your thesis deserves serious consideration. Refomrmed and always being reformed. Good job Tim. On a separate note, I am in a discussion about the Iraneus quote about all churches being in agreement with this church. I remember you dealing with it, I just cant remember the article ?

  2. “Dispensationalism is a product of a Bible and prophetic conference movement in the nineteenth century which divided history into a number of time periods, or dispensations, in which God dealt with humanity on a different basis in each period.

    The classic exposition of this interpretation is the Scofield Reference Bible. In it Scofield states that the Sermon on the Mount contains the law of the kingdom but not the duty of the church.

    The Sermon on the Mount has a twofold application: (1) Literally to the kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established on earth it will be according to that constitution. . . . In this sense the Sermon on the Mount is pure law. . . . For these reasons the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church. These are found in the Epistles. 5

    Thus the dispensational interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount simply tries to follow consistently the principle of literal, normal, or plain interpretation. It results in not trying to relegate primarily and fully the teachings of the Sermon to the believer in this age. But it does not in the least disregard the ethical principles of the Sermon as being not only applicable but also binding on believers today. 7”

    http://www.directionjournal.org/10/2/approaches-to-interpretation-and.html

    Scofield Bible is a good source document where they use the bible verses to interpret Scripture, with history, to declare the “truth” and avoid “protestant interpretation”.

    I think Jack Van Impe has a new prophecy bible out also where he is using the Scripture to interpret the Bible and history.

    In fact, I think there must be over 100 new prophecy Bibles in the marketplace where they use Scripture to interpret their views on prophecy. For the average reader who is “blown away” by the incredible scripture interpretation of the author, who claims to debunk all protestant interpretation by using practically Scripture alone, be aware almost all ministers in prophecy conferences make the same claims.

    Just be warned that dispensationalism has been around a long time and the literal, plain reading of Scripture interpretation is not the reformed method, it is the typical Scofield Bible dispensational method.

    Please don’t take this as a charge against the author that he is a dispensationalist. He is not. The point is that near everyone claims they are the only one who has been given the proper biblical interpretation of prophecy, and then they write a bible with margin references to show it line by line, or they produce a TV series, or a Blog series, or a video/tape series to prove that they have been given the (implied) vision using Scripture to see what everyone else has missed for generations. Thus, soon a new movement starts in history built upon rejecting the Protestants and the reformers as not given that vision.

    For example, beware of this statement which I believe is not true and is without warrant. It is one thing to flatly deny that something ever happened, but to do so after one was given the actual source document for a historicist use of Daniel to justify the “form of government” interpretation is, well, not very…well whatever. Let’s just quote it again. Tim said:

    “In what has been called the “generally received Protestant interpretation” the “seven kings” are taken to refer to seven “forms of government” (E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98), ***an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent.***”

    Then Pastor Greg Price wrote in his sermon:

    “c. The interpretation that I believe best explains the identity of the seven heads is certainly not original with me, but is rather the historic, Protestant interpretation of the seven heads of the civil Beast of Rome: namely, that the seven heads refer to a succession of forms of governments that ruled as heads over the political kingdom of Rome.

    ***(1) First, the word “kings” (“And there are [or they are—GLP] seven kings” in Revelation 17:10) does not always mean individual kings in prophetic Scripture. Note that in Daniel 7:17 the four political kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are called “four kings”; whereas in Daniel 7:23 these four kings are referred to as “kingdoms”. Why is that significant? It demonstrates that the word “king” does not have to refer to a single, individual king, but may actually stand for a government that includes many successive kings or rulers within it.***”

    It is absolutely fine to disagree with Pastor Price and label him all sorts of names since he is not on this blog to defend himself against false charges, but to state that the “generally received Protestant interpretation” the “seven kings” are taken to refer to seven “forms of government” (E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98), an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent.” is either one of two issues:

    1) Tim has rejected the statement that the “protestant interpretation” by Elliot or what Pastor Price calls, “historic, Protestant interpretation” uses Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10 is factual.

    2) That Pastor Price and Elliot are deceptive, and Tim is factual (in fact truthful) in his claim and charge that no historicist every used Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10.

    Now my comments will generate an attack by Kevin to smear me or Pastor Price for my reference to his statements above using Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10 (this is guaranteed if anyone watches Kevin on this or other blogs), and it will also generate a sharp rebuke from Tim who makes is clear that absolutely historcists have never used any of Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10…and it is all just speculative “tradition” by those historicist Protestants that love their tradition, and don’t know how to interpret Rev. 17:10 with Daniel.

    Either way, the wrath is coming for my trying to correct what I think is an error in the claims made against historicists in history, and certainly the reformed tradition.

    “(10) And there are seven kings. . . .—Better. They are seven kings: five (not “are fallen,” but fell, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he shall come, he must continue a short time. It has been debated whether these kings are individual sovereigns, or forms of government, or kingdoms The last view is the one adopted in this Commentary. The wild beast belongs to no one age, but is a power which has risen in every age; the seven heads represent the successive culminations of the world-power. Our space is insufficient to discuss here the whole question. But the language here used and the passages in the earlier prophets, which may be called the parent passages of the present vision, favour the interpretation that great world-kingdoms are intended. The language favours this view. It is said that the “kings fell.” The word is the one which has been used for political catastrophe: the cities of the nations fell (Revelation 16:19); Babylon, it is cried, has fallen (Revelation 14:8). It suits the overthrow of empires, and is so used in the LXX.; to apply it to individual kings is to ask that it shall be equivalent to “they died.” It is to be noticed that the four beasts of Daniel (Daniel 7:3-8) are declared to be four kings (Revelation 17:17), but these kings are not individual kings, but represent kingdoms. (See Daniel 7:23).”

    “And there are seven kings – That is, seven in all, as they are enumerated in this verse and the next. An eighth is mentioned in Revelation 17:11, but it is, at the same time, said that this one so pertains to the seven, or is so properly in one sense of the number seven, though, in another sense, to be regarded as an eighth, that it may be properly reckoned as the seventh. The word “kings” – βασιλεῖς basileis – may be understood, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned:

    (a) literally, as denoting a king, or one who exercises royal authority;

    (b) in a more general sense, as denoting one of distinguished honor – a viceroy, prince, leader, chief, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:3,Matthew 2:9; Luke 1:5; Acts 12:1;

    (c) in a still larger sense, as denoting a dynasty, a form of government, a mode of administration, as what, in fact, “rules.”

    See the notes on Daniel 7:24, where the word “king” undoubtedly denotes a “dynasty,” or “form of rule.” The notion of ruling, or of authority, is undoubtedly in the word, for the verb βασιλεύω basileuō means “to rule,” but the word may be applied to anything in which sovereignty resides. Thus it is applied to a king’s son, to a military commander, to the gods, to a Greek archon, etc. See Passow. It would be contrary to the whole spirit of this passage, and to what is demanded by the proper meaning of the word, to insist that the word should denote literally kings, and that it could not be applied to emperors, or to dictators, or to dynasties.”

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/17-10.htm

    1. Thanks, Walt,

      I don’t recall saying that “absolutely historcists have never used any of Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10.” I simply said that the traditional interpretation comes down to us without Danielic authority, which is not the same thing.

      I responded to your clarifying comments from Pastor Price last week by simply observing that his interpretation is a non sequitur. Read his commentary carefully. He essentially says that because Daniel 7 refers to a series of governments, Revelation 17:10 may be taken to refer to a series of forms of government. It is a non sequitur; an invalid conclusion from an invalid premise. What is consistent in Daniel 7 is that the four beasts are four successive world empires. They are not successions of mayors, city councils and county commissions in a single nation.

      Also, as I noted last week, Price relies on Tacitus to arrive at the seven forms of government, but Tacitus lists eight (Annals, 1.1). He lists Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, Despots (revival of the dictatorship) and Princes (Emperors):

      “Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompeius and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and Antonius before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of “Prince.””

      I did not hear back from you on that, but will appreciate your thoughts. I maintain that taking Revelation 17:10 as a series of forms of Roman government dating to a time 700 years before Rome was a world power and 150 years before the starting point of all Danielic eschatology is a non sequitur, especially when a Danielic example of the same narrative tool is provided for us in Daniel 11:1-3.

      Thank you,

      Tim

      1. Thanks Tim, I am researching your response of last week, and have more digging to do. I glanced at it last week but was under a lot of other business deadlines that did not allow me to dig in until today. I’m not avoiding it, just need to consult more due diligence to understand the distinctions.

        You said:

        “I don’t recall saying that “absolutely historcists have never used any of Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10.” I simply said that the traditional interpretation comes down to us without Danielic authority, which is not the same thing.”

        Can you explain the difference? I don’t think I understand as I know you are a good one at interpreting what one says in the literal, plain and normal meaning of the author. You can disagree with Price and others using Daniel as their means to interpret scripture with scripture, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you imply they don’t use it.

    2. Walt,

      Matthew Henry’s Commentary (1720) says “seven kings” refers to “seven sorts of government,” but provides no Scriptural basis for it, and certainly nothing from Daniel.

      John Gill in his commentary (1748) says the seven kings of Revelation 17:10 refer to “forms of government which took place successively in the Roman empire,” but does so based on Deuteronomy, not on Daniel.

      Adam Clarke, in his commentary (1810), makes the same argument Gill does, arguing from Deuteronomy rather than Daniel.

      William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament (1900) says Revelation 17:10 refers to forms of government, yet makes no Scriptural case for his position, and offers nothing from Daniel.

      Andreas Osiander (1511) determined that the seven heads refer to seven forms of government, but makes no argument from Daniel. Elliott (1844) argues similarly, even citing Osiander, but makes no argument for his position from Daniel, and instead says, we must “turn to history for the interpretation.”

      Pastor Price in his sermon (2012) argues that a succession of governments in Daniel 7 justifies interpreting kings as a succession of forms of government in Revelation 17:10.

      As I have noted elsewhere, I think his argument is a non sequitur, arguing that Daniel’s reference to a succession of governments may validly be taken to infer a succession of forms of government. But in any case, do you believe that Pastor Price has seen something that everyone else has missed for generations? Or do you have an historicist protestant argument for Revelation 17:10 from Daniel that predates 2012? I am not saying there aren’t any. In my limited search, I can’t seem to find any, and the earliest arguments for “forms of government” in Revelation 17:10 do not appear to have been derived from Daniel. Do you have anything earlier than 2012?

      Also, Pastor Price says Revelation 17:10, “And there are seven kings…” which is what the original Greek says, is better translated “They (the seven heads) are seven kings …” in order to make the seven heads refer to the seven kings, in order to buttress his argument from Daniel. That change in the term from “there are” to “they are” is something that is supported from the Arabic, Vulgate, Syriac and Ethiopic translations, but is absent in the original Greek and therefore is not supported by the Textus Receptus. Do you believe the Vulgate ought to correct the Greek?

      Thanks,

      Tim

      1. Thanks Tim. I noticed all the commentaries as well and only two of them I quoted referenced Kings meant kingdoms in Daniel 7:17 and 7:23 and in Dan.8:21 kings where they are used synonymously.

        “(17) Four kings.—Kingdoms are frequently represented by their heads or founders; hence kings and kingdoms are occasionally used synonymously. (Comp. Daniel 8:21.)”

        It has been debated whether these kings are individual sovereigns, or forms of government, or kingdoms The last view is the one adopted in this Commentary. Ellicott Commentary, “Charles John Ellicott (1819–1905) was a distinguished English Christian theologian, academic and churchman. He briefly served as Dean of Exeter,[1] then Bishop of the sees of Gloucester and Bristol.” An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers, 1897 (Editor)
        A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, 1878

        Thus, since it appears the debate about “forms of government” existed before 1878 as referenced in his commentary, I only naturally assume that someone used Daniel as the source for “kings” becoming “kingdoms” and “forms of government”.

        However, as you point out, Elliot references it and it appears he started in 1837 on “forms of government”.

        “”Horae Apocalypticae (Hours with the Apocalypse) is doubtless the most elaborate work ever produced on the Apocalypse. Without an equal in exhaustive research in its field, it was occasioned by the futurist attack on the Historical School of interpretation. Begun in 1837, its 2,500 pages are buttressed by some 10,000 invaluable references to ancient and modern works. It ran through five editions (1844, 1846, 1847, 1851 and 1862).”[1] In 1868 he published a Postscript to comment on the events, or perceived lack of events, marking the prophetically significant years, 1865/7.”

        Please answer this for me after I posted Pastor Price reference last week:

        “I don’t recall saying that “absolutely historcists have never used any of Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10.” I simply said that the traditional interpretation comes down to us without Danielic authority, which is not the same thing.”

        Can you explain the difference? I don’t think I understand as I know you are a good one at interpreting what one says in the literal, plain and normal meaning of the author. You can disagree with Price and others using Daniel as their means to interpret scripture with scripture, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you imply they don’t use it.

  3. Walt, stick to Reformed theology. You show your ignorance when you cut and paste on dispensationalists. To say that the Sermon on the Mount doesnt apply to the believer in Dispensationalisim is an old fairy tale. You tell allot of them outside your sect. Walt, do you expect to be taken seriously when you come here and hurl bombs. Scripture says you will know them by their fruits. You have judged everbody on this site, including your Presbyterian brother. You are a clanging symbol. You belong to a sect that says they are the only valid church. That gives universal a whole new meaning. Price says he is the only lawful minister of the gospel. Buy him and Steele a tiarra, for you have given your implicit faith. God bless hope you are well. K

  4. Walt said , this is modern day comedy to read your posts. You said watch out for Kevin’s attack. Do you expect immunity as you being the only one to attack positions ? Quit whining, and make an argument. Lets review your most recent post. You are on your bible only kick, and yet your pope Price has called himself the only lawful minister of the gospel. You definately can spot the” only “in people. The truth is Walt, you know it, I know it , Tim knows it, that if you and your boys had your way, Tim would be right now before your courts facing 60 lashes for his thesis. For not bowing down to the infalible pronouncements of the Covenanters. Thank God we live in the USA. You are a hypocrite of the highest order, an unrepentant man. Im sick of watching you try to shame Tim into your camp. Try, something new. Get your bible and refute his position. Im ready to hear argument. If you havent noticed, you havent shamed this blog out of existence. Let me get this right, Walt who has ad hominem attacked everyone on here, is concerned about Pastor Price being attacked by Kevin. Please apologize to his eminence for me, for simply stating he called himself the only lawful minister of the gospel. If Im wrong, Ill apologize. K

  5. Walt, you said ” this is guaranteed if anyone watches Kevin on this blog or other blogs” I just figured out your modus operandi. If you can label me and smear my character, then Tim will kick me off and you can continue to shame him into the covenanter camp unabated. You are a deceitfyl man. You can impugn my character all you want, Gos is my witness. My behavior has been exemplary on other blogs and Tim will attest to the changes in my character and behavior on this blog. Im trying to put my arms around the hypocrisy that comes here to defend Price’s character being smeared, and in the same post smear mine, having been confronted by Gus a Presbytyrian officer about smearing Tim and you rebuffing his calling you to repent. Attack me Walt, go ahead and smear my character. God will have the last word. Ill still pray for you. K

  6. Here you go Tim, I highlighted what you said:

    “In what has been called the “generally received Protestant interpretation” the “seven kings” are taken to refer to seven “forms of government” (E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98), ***an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent.***”

    Please explain this in light of my post of last week.

  7. Tim,
    Indeed it has been a long running controversy for many hundreds of years…so it seems you might not be the first in history to question this issue! Bet that feels a relief as it is not always the best to be the only one standing alone claiming you are spot on with Scripture. Guess it is a long running debate.

    See below.

    http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/prophecy/seven-heads.htm

    It is these seven kings that we want to deal with in this paper. Basically, there are three different interpretations that could be considered about who these seven kings are:

    Seven Individual Kings: This interpretation has a couple variations. Some try to identify seven individual emperors (a typical preterist view), and others seven individual popes.
    Seven Kingdoms: This interpretation typically identifies the first five kings either as being Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Pagan Rome, and Papal Rome; or as being Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece.
    Seven Forms of Roman Government: This interpretation typically identifies the first five kings as being five of the following forms of government: a) kings, b) consuls, c) dictators, d) decemvirate, e) military tribunes with consular power, and f) triumvirate.
    —————
    In all fairness I should acknowledge those who have expressed similar opinions before me.

    W. B. Godbey in his Commentary on the New Testament says regarding Revelation 12:3:

    The seven heads and seven diadems emblematize the seven governments of Rome, the mighty empire of Satan; i.e., the kings, consuls, dictators, triumvirs, tribunes, emperors, and popes, who ruled the world two thousand years. The ten horns are the ten great political powers into which the Roman world was disintegrated when the barbarians dethroned the Csars.

    Regarding Revelation 17:11, he states:

    The kings, consuls, dictators, triumvirs, tribunes, emperors, and popes constitute the seven heads of the Roman beast.

    Godbey specifies the reign of the seventh, the popes, as being 1260 years. He identifies the beast who is an eighth as being the papacy in the end of time.

    Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible states regarding Revelation 17:7-14:

    This beast was seven heads, seven mountains, the seven hills on which Rome stands; and seven kings, seven sorts of government. Five were gone by when this prophecy was written; one was then in being; the other was yet to come. This beast, directed by the papacy, makes an eighth governor, and sets up idolatry again.

    Family New Testament Notes on Revelation 17:10:

    This is understood by many as representing the seven forms of civil government which prevailed in Rome—kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes, emperors, and the exarchate of Ravenna; for here, as in verse 12, a king denotes not an individual, but a succession of rulers.

    The learned Baptist commentator John Gill on Revelation 17:10:

    … but by the seven heads are meant so many forms of government which took place successively in the Roman empire, and were all of them idolatrous heads, as kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, tribunes, emperors, and popes; it being usual for any sort of governors, or governments and monarchies, to be called kings, …

    Adam Clarke, the prominent Wesleyan commentator, states on 6B:1167 of his work:

    The seven heads of the beast are therefore the following: The regal power, the dictatorship, the power of the praetors, the consulate, the triumvirate, the imperial power, and the patriciate.

    Uriah Smith wrote an entire tract on the subject. Regarding Osiander he writes:

    And one of the earliest Protestant commentators, Osiander, as early as 1511, names the whole seven as we have them; namely, Kings, Consuls, Decemvirs, Dictators, Triumvirs, Emperors, and Popes, as the forms of Roman government represented by the seven heads of the dragon of Revelation 12, and the seven-headed beasts of Revelation 13 and Revelation 17. (The Seven Heads 2)

    He also writes concerning Elliot, and in the process refers to the views of Mede, Newton, Daubuz, King James, Pareus, Aretius, Napier, Brightman, and Fulco:

    Elliott, in his Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. 3, page 102, introduces an argument to show that “all the mutations of the seven-headed beast, from its earliest beginning to the end, must be confined to the seven-hilled locality;” that is, to Rome. As to the application of the seven heads themselves, he further says on page 106: “In explanation, then, of the first six heads, I adopt, with the most entire satisfaction, that generally received Protestant interpretation, which, following the authoritative statements of Livy and Tacitus (the latter great historian John’s own contemporary), enumerates Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, and Military Tribunes, and the five first constitutional heads of the Roman city and commonwealth; then, as the sixth, the Imperial head, commencing with Octavian, better known as Augustus Caesar.” He then refers to the view of Mede and Bishop Newton, that the seventh head was the dukedom of Rome, under the Exarchate of Ravenna, about sixty years. Page 110. Further, on pages 119-121, he presents evidence to show that the papacy is the last, or eighth, head. … A footnote on the words, “generally received Protestant interpretation,” page 106, as quoted above, presents these facts: “Daubuz, page 514, attributes its discovery to King James. But I find it noticed in the early Protestant commentator, Pareus, page 422, as the solution of Aretius, Napier, and Brightman; each of whom probably – some of them certainly – preceded King James. …

    Again he quotes a work by Fulco on the Apocalypse, London, 1573, who, writing in Latin, gives the Latin name of the seven heads, as follows: “Reges, Consules, Decemviri, Triumviri, Dectatores, Caesares, Pontifex” (the pope). (The Seven Heads 38,39)

    William Miller expressed two different opinions on the matter:

    Republican Rome had five different offices under that particular form of government–her senatorial, tribunate, consular, decemvir, and tirumvirate. These are fallen. One is, (that was when John wrote his prophecy,) Imperial, and the other had not yet come, Kingly, which is the same as the ten horns. ( Miller’s Works 2:80)

    IN this verse we are taught that John had a vision, and saw himself standing among the tumultuous nations of the earth; and he saw the Roman kingdom rise up out of the nations, having seven forms, or all kinds of governments, seven being a perfect number in this prophecy. Heads denote governments, or supreme power: 1, Republican; 2, Consular; 3, Decemvir; 4, Dictatorial; 5, Triumvirate; 6, Imperial; 7, Kingly. (Remarks on Revelation Thirteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth 5)

  8. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

    there are — Translate, “they (the seven heads) are seven kings.”

    five … one — Greek, “the five … the one”; the first five of the seven are fallen (a word applicable not to forms of government passing away, but to the fall of once powerful empires: Egypt, Ezekiel 29:1-30:26; Assyria and Nineveh, Nahum 3:1-19; Babylon, Revelation 18:2; Jeremiah 50:1-51:64; Medo-Persia, Daniel 8:3-7, Daniel 8:20-22; Daniel 10:13; Daniel 11:2; Greece, Daniel 11:4). Rome was “the one” existing in John‘s days. “Kings” is the Scripture phrase for kingdoms, because these kingdoms are generally represented in character by some one prominent head, as Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, Medo-Persia by Cyrus, Greece by Alexander, etc. (1871)

    Whedon’s Commentary on the Bible

    10. Seven kings—The mountains have a double import; physical, representing the hills on which Rome is founded, and political, representing kings, or, as in the words of Daniel’s prophecy, on which this is based, kingdoms. “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings,” that is, as the context shows, kingdoms. In the despotic East the King was the State. And a beast is never a king except as one with his kingdom. (1874).

    It appears that in almost all the commentaries they refer to forms of government, or individual kings/kingdoms.

    http://www.studylight.org/commentary/revelation/17-10.html

    Do you think there is any reason to modify your position, or would you like to hold to this statement with confidence?:

    “In what has been called the “generally received Protestant interpretation” the “seven kings” are taken to refer to seven “forms of government” (E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, vol iii, 96, 98), ***an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent.***”

  9. I think the argument made in the article today has biblically exposed the interpretation of ” forms of government ” to not only be out of Danielic precedent scripturally, but a completely faulty chronology. In fact I submit after reading today’s article, Reformed theology can put to bed kings meaning anything other than kings. K

  10. Tim,

    When you say, “an interpretation that comes down to us with no Danielic precedent” and that you may be the only one in historicist in protestant history to use Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10 (except Pastor Price in 2012), I have a question for you.

    This evening I was watching an interview with Steven Lawson on The Daring Mission of William Tyndale and as I was watching it dawned on me that Tyndale was really the pioneer in history to translate the entire Bible into english, and put it into paper for all english speaking people to read. Lawson says that 75% of Tyndale’s work was preserved by the 50 translators who helped to formalize the King James Version. Thus, his work was ground breaking and the story of one man taking on the world in the face of death was incredible. The video interview is here if interested:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3FWJJKkoY

    I don’t want to say this wrong as it could be taken out of context, but is it fair to say that you think of yourself as a sort of Tyndale in our generation to show future generations the errors of the reformation ministers and interpreters? As I read your weekly blog posts tackle these eschatological issues, and genuinely week after week seek to prove your gifts and skills to interpret scripture like no other mere man in history of the Christian church, out of a sincere heart, it makes me think of you when I watched the Tyndale video. Tyndale was solely passionate and on a mission to give the Scriptures to the english speaking world in the face of Rome.

    I can see your disappointment in what the reformers did to try to reform both Church and National governments to the extent they did, and how many (I don’t know how many yet until you finish your series) of these reformers did not use Scripture in their interpretation, but rather mostly tradition which caused them to error.

    In your significant skill to be able to see the truth revealed in God’s holy word, I can see you as a sort of Tyndale standing against the world so to speak. Tyndale stood against both the Romish and English system alone, and you largely are standing against both the Romish and Protestant Reformers alone.

    There is an interesting parallel I see between your cause and that of Tyndale when watching the interview. I don’t want this to sound too harsh on you, and certainly you can correct my interpretation of what I see unfolding, but it is worth asking.

    If indeed you see this as a cause of you against the world in the history of prophecy and eschatology, I want to ask a few follow-up questions on your views of how you see the kingdom of heaven and if you think Tyndale went overboard in his passion to reform the world. The same would be for your role in seeking to correct the errors of the refomers, and the entire Christian church in our generation.

    Where do you draw the line on what you can do biblically (in a cause of reformation) before Christ returns without “going to far” as the nations of Scotland, England and Ireland did in the second reformation to reform church and nation?

  11. How can one man make more judgments on another human being’s motives ill never know. How can you be a believer Walt. Love believes all things, bears all things. Instead of believing the best about a brother, now you ate telking him what he is thinking about himself. Where is Dan, or Henry or some of these brothers here. Gus and I are the only men who will call you for what you are. Sad. I wont address you anymore.

  12. “For that reason study is necessary. A Church which does not teach her youth can never hope to retain a pure confession, but relinquishes it, cuts off all contact with the past, divorces herself from the fathers, and forms a new group.

    Yes, study is obligatory. If you desire to confess, you must learn. You must not learn the interpretation of this or that preacher or instructor, for the opinions of these vary widely, and have always done so. Instead, you must learn what the Church has throughout the centuries confessed as the truth revealed by God in His holy Scriptures. That confession must be taught in all the Churches, to all who are reared within the Church, to all who wish to become responsible members of it, whether they be young or old, experienced or inexperienced.

    The present generation must reaffirm the confession which the previous generation received from its fathers. Nothing could be more erroneously conceived than to suppose that each new generation should make a new, that is, a different confession. The children must reaffirm the confession of their fathers. True education is just that: a reinterpretation and a reaffirmation. Such true education, accordingly, should obtain in the Church of Jesus. It should be the holy objective of that church to make the spontaneous voice of the heart identical with the reaffirmation of the lips.

    In Psalm 78, Asaph laid down the golden rule in this matter: “Give ear, O my people, to my law: I will utter dark sayings of old: which we have heard of old: which we have heard and known, because our fathers have told us.” Asaph tells us concerning these truths that we may not “hide them from our children, from the generation to come.” The Lord God has committed the treasure of His truth to the keeping of His Church, in order that it may maintain itself from paradise through the generations to the consummation of the world. Asaph sang: “For he hath established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children; that the generations to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their children: that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.”

    Hence there is no room for doubt about the obligation of study and of instruction. You are duty-bound to do so. The truth of God which He revealed must be transmitted from one generation to another. The confession of the church may not become embedded in the dust of the ages but must be constantly reaffirmed. Memorisation alone is futile, it is true, but without it the links of the chain that bind the Church of God into a unity break and fall apart.

    It strikes us, at first thought, that it would be a most gratifying situation if the church of God upon earth had a confession now which was the same as that which she had always confessed, and a confession which was most exact and elucidating in every detail. Yet, there is an element of unsoundness in the very appeal of this situation. In fact, there is an element of sin in it; for, the history of the Church proves that exactly the opposite has been God’s will. How plausible, too, that changes sometimes must occur. Otherwise, the confession of one generation would simply be a blind imitation of that of the preceding generation.

    We know, therefore, that there are some virtually deformed, or contaminated, Churches, and some reformed or purged, Churches, representing contaminated and purged confessions, respectively. It has been your privilege to have been born in one of those reformed Churches which has a reformed confession. That privilege should tend to strengthen the yearning within you, never to relinquish your hold upon that purged confession, but to “keep that which thou hast.”

    (from Abraham Kuyper’s The Implications of Public Confession)

  13. The sense of Corinthians from Paul is judge for yourselves. Bible in hand, the Bereans did just that. Jesus said ” if someone comes to you and says I am the Christ, dont believe him. The bible commands individual believers to make determinations about truth and error, and tells us to hold ourselves back from errors. 1 John 2:27 is clear , you have no need of a teacher, but you have an anointing which is true and not a lie. Does that mean we dont listen to our teachers? No it doesnt. But it means that in the end I have the Spirit by and with the word of God to judge, yes even the church. Those who would bind the consciences of men thru acusations of bible only, or biblicist, forget the liberty of conscience that Luther fought for. Only God can bind a man’s conscience. And those who make those acusations elevate subordinate documents and tradition above the the word of God. We’ve seen that show before. Fear God, not men. K

  14. This is so tiresome. Having dealt with the Steelites, and having personal knowledge of the families they attempted to destroy in Edmonton, Alberta, in the late 90s I do understand where this covenanter is coming from. His arguments are the same as the arguments of the Steelites so many years ago–if they have not repented. The argument is that because they are the only duly constituted Solemn League and National Covenant affirming presbytery they are the ONLY church that has not apostasized. They were, and if nothing has changed ARE a cult. I encourage everyone to studiously avoid them. They condemned the RPCNA as apostate, which shows how much narrower in their interpretation of the SL & NC they were than other covenanter cliques. Many, many good things have come out of the 2nd reformation. Their uncompromising stand for the truth, their desire that things have been done decently and in order, their persuasion concerning the Westminster Standards, etc. BUT the Steelites believing that they alone carry on the work of the 2nd reformation have talked themselves into a corner. EVERY CHRISTIAN IN THE WORLD IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO JOIN A STEELITE CHURCH OR BE GUILTY OF APOSTASY. And every member is required to NOT engage in “occasional” hearing of the Gospel. The spirit of legalism was so rife, that some two decades ago they tried to bind Christian families to oaths of secrecy, and many were excommunicated for merely expressing their doubts concerning the validity of such oaths. Pastor PRICE, as well as TE Barrows, of Still Water Revival were all part of this. See: http://www.articlesnatch.com/blog/Up-From-Reconstructionism–Puritan-Reformed-Church-Of-Edmonton/1028006#gsc.tab=0. This history stops telling the story after 1996. It was after that that it went off the rails. They have been in constant controversy. See also: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/covrefdf/covrefdf2.htm. Controversy is a way of life with these people. The terms of communion of such a church full of people, taught in essence to see the 2nd reformation as a defacto magisterium, being bound to uphold establishmentarianism because Canada, the USA and every other nation descended from Britain is a “moral person” are truly a spectacle to behold. Let us be clear, if you are a strict covenanter YOU MAY NOT AMEND THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. IF YOU SING HYMNS YOU ARE AN IDOLATER. IF YOU DO NOT KEEP A STRICTLY SABBATARIAN LIFESTYLE YOU ARE AN IDOLATER. IF YOU DO NOT GO TO ONE OF THEIR CHURCHES, the blood of the 2nd Reformation martyrs cries out against you, and YOU ARE AN IDOLATER. THEY ARE THE ONLY CHURCH YOU SHOULD GO TO–ANY OTHER IS APOSTASY.

    Why have i gone to such lengths? Because Walt is a hypocrite, and knows it full well. It is dangerous and heretical for Tim to say that the “received Protestant Interpretation” is wrong. He is innovating–against the 2nd Reformation! Yet such a strict sect has such an innovative view of church obligation, that every single person on this blog is an apostate–except Walt. We are little better than Romanists. Who knows whether we are saved, after all we oppose the work of the 2nd reformation?! Notice the title of David Steele’s book: Apostasy in the RPCNA. Why is the RPCNA apostate? Because they gave up 2nd reformation distinctives, and allow their members to vote in civil elections. ALL of this to point out, that Tim is wrong BECAUSE he disagrees with 2nd Reformation writers–not scripture. Tim must be warned that he is apostasizing because he is disagreeing with the 2nd Reformation. At the very least he is in serious declension and is on the cusp of heresy. Goodness! Tim is an idolater because he posts these blogs on the Sabbath. And should therefore be put to death, just like we should censure with civil punishment Baptists. This is surreal to me. I understand, holding to the truth. I understand dying for the truth. I even understand, standing alone. I am in the unenviable position of disagreeing with them AND Richard Bacon, and David Engelsma. I have seen, and testify, that with my own eyes, their attitude is dangerously heretical because the lodestone of all doctrine, is not the Scriptures, but the 2nd Reformation. I respect the Westminster Standards BUT I believe it is wrong on the Sabbath. Therefore they believe I am a heretic. No one likes there being 1000 denominations, but the answer is not adopting the persecuting spirit of Rome, the antichrist. The answer is compassionate and kind hearted persuasion, not bashing people over the head. Men like Walt don’t understand that the world hates this modern church not because it represents Christ–it does not. The world hates us because we represent doctrine, controversy, etc. without Christian love. Trust me, I have personal experience of the “love” of my brothers. They were kind enough to give me a heart attack and drive me into bankruptcy–the Lord forgive them. Walt is dangerous because he is fanatical, and he is dissembling because he will not honestly admit that the rhetoric of the 2nd reformation makes all of us (including Tim) not worthy of being listened to, because we do not believe in the binding nature of a national covenant made over four centuries ago. Therefore no matter what Tim says, if he has a 1000 biblical citations, it cannot be right, because it contradicts the authors of the 2nd Reformation. I wonder why he quotes Elliot a premillenial? Oh well, it must be ok to quote a heretic dishonesty when you can use him as a cudgel and then out of earshot condemn him for being a heretic. He was NOT 2nd Reformation. They are fanatics. And by the way Walt, I sing “Jesus loves me” in worship.

    Tim is great. 2nd reformation authors may disagree with him, but as far as i can tell, Daniel, John and Zechariah do not. And if Tim is wrong, or can be convinced, I trust my brother, he will repent. But, these prophets are not 2nd reformation authors. Finally I think what tim mentions here is excellent and what is apropos is Zech 5:6-11 where Zechariah prophesies wickedness coming out of Shinar [babylon]. I believe it is a reference to the spirit of antichrist, which is the spirit of babylonian religion.

    6 And I said, “What is it?” He said, “This is the basket that is going out.” And he said, “This is their iniquity in all the land.”
    7 And behold, the leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the basket! 8 And he said, “This is Wickedness.” And he thrust her back into the basket, and thrust down the leaden weight on its opening. 9 Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven.
    10 Then I said to the angel who talked with me, “Where are they taking the basket?” 11 He said to me, “To the land of Shinar, to build a house for it. And when this is prepared, they will set the basket down there on its base.” (Zech. 5:6-11 ESV)

    Dr. Gus Gianello
    Issachar Biblical Institute
    issachar.institute@gmail.com

    PS. Kevin, in Walt’s estimation he has not been rebuked by two brothers but by, at very best, two schismatics. I doubt we will make it to heaven!

  15. Gus, yes I realize that we are schismatics to his cult. Walt the Pharisse has tried to lay his mishna on me. But, Ill listen to Paul and not let anyone act as my judge to a sabbath day. You can see you and I and Tim walking out of the Acts 15 meeting and Walt would be there to hand us a new mishna. The only reason I have treated Walt as a brother is because he has professed the gospel and love believes all things, and I want to make him aware that it is a serious thing to judge another man’s heart, motives, intentions. Walt, Pastor Price, Reg Barlow, arent the first men in history who have convinced themselves of their inherency and infalibility. Lets face it, Catholics and Reformers alike convinced themselves killing in the name of truth was the right thing. R.C. Sproul was one of the true humble men I have met in my life. I was saved in MacArthur’s church, and I would admit for his amazing teaching gifts there is an arogance there. In the end Gus, I may be wrong, but these guys like Dan, Walt, have looked feeble in their arguments against Tim’s position. Cutting and pasting past reformed positions isnt making an argument. Im not so sure of theses members here of the steelite cult arent compketely convinced of Tim’s work. From my limited perspective it is embarrising some of these so called past experts. An a great example is the argument that kings means forms of government in correct context. Reformed and ALWAYS being reformed. There was a reason WCF left the subject of eschatology open. Its hard. But Tim has put in the time, and deserves to be considered imho. K

  16. WALT–
    You said: “Now my comments will generate an attack by Kevin to smear me or Pastor Price for my reference to his statements above using Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10 (this is guaranteed if anyone watches Kevin on this or other blogs), and it will also generate a sharp rebuke from Tim who makes is clear that absolutely historcists have never used any of Daniel to interpret Rev. 17:10…and it is all just speculative “tradition” by those historicist Protestants that love their tradition, and don’t know how to interpret Rev. 17:10 with Daniel.
    Either way, the wrath is coming for my trying to correct what I think is an error in the claims made against historicists in history, and certainly the reformed tradition.”

    I am surprised you left out Dr. Gus in all this. He has not only stoned you with his words, but your Church as well. He uses Steelites pejoratively (ie. cult) just like Reformed use “Papists”.
    But look on the bright side, at least he didn’t call you a whore.
    Looks to me like there is plenty of poison to go around for everyone.

    “Aint much pride
    When you’re trapped inside
    A slowly sinkin’ ship.
    Swooped up the liquid
    Deep and green,
    And the whole town took a sip.”

    1. The funny thing Bob is that if you ever got Walt to respond, he would call you far worse. Steelites want to kill Roman Catholics. I have never expressed such an opinion.

      Dr. Gus Gianello

      1. DR GUS–
        You said: “The funny thing Bob is that if you ever got Walt to respond, he would call you far worse. Steelites want to kill Roman Catholics. I have never expressed such an opinion.”

        He already has. You know the saying. Sticks and stones, maybe. But words, never. Like you, I play hardball.
        And like Kevin, I have learned a lot from this blog. The study of church history from both sides of the Reformation has been fascinating. But what’s more is what I have learned from the people who comment here. I never knew any Presbyterians before. The pejoratives are common and the Presbyterian disciples are relentless in using them against Catholics. Yes, Tim is very cordial, but his polite language is pejorative nonetheless. Like I have said in the past, he is very good at what he does. Some seem to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
        The thing is, I have never known any Catholics that treat Presbyterians the way that Presbyterians treat Catholics.
        You just don’t see that kind of thing among the Methodists. I am the exception. Like I said, I play hardball.

        1. BUT its amazing what Catholics will do to catholics. My mother told me stories about hidden tunnels between nunneries and seminaries in her town in italy. The “brothers” get the “sisters” pregnant, and then the sisters abandon their babies in the tunnel. No abortions, after all they are prolife. Go watch “Spotlight”. I got nothing on the archbishop of Boston.

          Gus

          1. Dr Gus – I like your reasoning. Catholics act in an unchristian manner towards one another, therefore you and Presbyterians are justified in being unchristian towards Catholics.

            Heck, you are elect anyway. It’s not like it matters right?

          2. DR GUS–
            You said: “BUT its amazing what Catholics will do to catholics. My mother told me stories about hidden tunnels between nunneries and seminaries in her town in italy. The “brothers” get the “sisters” pregnant, and then the sisters abandon their babies in the tunnel. No abortions, after all they are prolife. Go watch “Spotlight”. I got nothing on the archbishop of Boston.”

            Like I have said before, sinning is as old as Cain and Abel. Stories about Catholics sinning (or anyone else for that matter) doesn’t surprise me. We humans have been trying to circumvent the rules since we were born.

  17. Brother Gus, not that itmatters, but I wanted to tell you, I have been here for 2 years and I can say I have learned much at Whitehorse blog. But even more than what Tim writes, his consistency as person to other people has made me want to read and listen to his stuff. Personally, I believe Walt is convinced of Tim’s position because he keeps saying he is leaving, but voila he comes back every week, which is great. Its interesting to see Walt try every way possible to shame Tim out of his position into his camp. First he called him a hypocrite, then he questioned his heart and motives. Just when we thought we have seen it all, this week he purposes to tell Tim what he is thinking, comparing him to Willian Tyndale . Christians dont treat people this way. And if Walt thinks we are all unbelievers, which he does, still, Christians dont treat unbelievers that way. I believe Calvin was friends with Melancthon and considered Lutherans true believers. Gus, anxiety is having 2 different goals, and thats what I see from Walt. He is convinced of Tim’s eschatology imho , yet he is required to believe 2nd reformation postions. Just my thoughts. K

    1. Kevin,
      I made a serious mistake with Walt, I engaged with him, thinking him somewhat reasonable, and i see now he is not. I have personal experience of all the things i mentioned about the steelites. I cannot deny what i have seen. Walt, is on his own. I repent for having ever engaged with him, not because i am bested but because scripture says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him.” The closeted and uncloseted RCs I have no crisis of conscience about. They conveniently forget that i have pledged to help them with all i have and am. I can not help it if they deride me.

      TIM, if I in any way have been out of line, I apologize and if you want me to leave this blog I will leave. I dont want to lose your friendship–if I haven’t lost it already. Gus

      1. Gus, I have been busy these last two weeks. I apologize for the late response. You have not lost my friendship. You are not asked to leave the blog.

        No worries,

        Tim

  18. It is good that you guys are dragging me through the mud with all these false allegations and charges about Steelites, myself wanting to kill Bob and loads of other garbage showing your own ignorance and foolishness. There is no doubt that challenging Tim as being hypocritical demanding the reformers use Scripture only, and then himself listing a slew of historical testimony has Tim somehow furious as being labeled. He certainly dishes it out here on the blog about Roman Catholic references he quotes, and sure he might not call anyone a hypocrite, but I suspect he does not understand some of the implications he makes against others might be considered hypocritical. I guess he is very good at using his words very carefully so not to offend anyone.

    Obviously, this is the opposite of Gus and Kevin. Just read the garbage and trash talk from both of them on this site and as they both stand up, brush off their bright white suits coming in to save Tim from false charges I allegedly made, it is indeed humorous. Actually, it is really sad to watch these two guys. In fact, I firmly believe that Gus is severely mentally damaged to some degree or another as a professing minister. I’ve never read anyone write such stuff as a Pastor outside what some of the Arminian Baptists write against Calvinists. The bark is so loud and obnoxious it is really sad and I truly feel sorry for him. Kevin on the other hand is just a typical loud mouth (as we call them where I come from) jumping from site to site doing everything he can to “preach the good news” and defend Tim’s every word…no matter if in error or not.

    Funny…Tim booted Kevin from the site over his loud mouth and now he is let back in and he is the great defender of Tim’s every word doing everything he can to stay on this blog posting. The best thing to do to stay here is defend Tim from every post anyone makes. Just watch anyone who posts Kevin is right there to defend his every word.

    It is really very cute. Gus and Kevin really are made of the same cloth. Big barking, lots of barking and lots of threats claiming all all times to defend poor Tim from being falsely accused. It is great for Tim to sit back, let the barking go on about Steelites, Pastor Price, myself, everyone of us that are out to try to kill Roman Catholics, etc. In fact, none of that is even remotely true. It is all internet conspiracy theory that has boogy men surfacing from every corner of the Steelite community. Watch out boys…here I come to get you both! Whoo, look out. Watch where you are at all times!

  19. Bob said:

    “I am surprised you left out Dr. Gus in all this. He has not only stoned you with his words, but your Church as well. He uses Steelites pejoratively (ie. cult) just like Reformed use “Papists”.
    But look on the bright side, at least he didn’t call you a whore.
    Looks to me like there is plenty of poison to go around for everyone.”

    He was not on the war path last week, and I wrote Tim privately to see if he was going to let the trash talk about Pastor Price continue since he was not here to defend himself on the blog. However, I have heard all this stuff for years, and I did not want to say anything in deference to Tim as the blog should not turn into a Steelite attack and Pastor Price attack, but he has let it go on so I’m going to scare them both today saying I’m going come and get them with a band of Steelites! Gus will go into hiding, or call the federal authorities seeking protection, and Kevin will likely get new locks on his doors, set-up a good old pluralistic neighborhood watch in his neighborhood, and make sure he puts up pictures of Pastor Price around the area to “beware” of Steelite Pastor in the area who are on the hunt to kill protestants and catholics who do not agree with Tim.

    Yes, I came back to challenge Time on a few distinctions I think he was in error, and to get his presupposition as he has stated several times that he can stand alone on his views against the world as others in history have done. The video on Tyndale demonstrated a man on a mission, and Tim appears to have the same mission to overturn the errors of the Church and all reformed protestants who hold to the pre- or post-mill historicist position. It is a worthy cause, but perhaps it is more of a strong inner desire to stand against the world to bring the truth of his message to the world using bible only teaching, and reject all protestant historical teaching on eschatology.

    I don’t know. For now it is best to these his two side kicks get their jabs in against, me, Pastor Price, Steelite cults and the like. It has to make him feel good that he has defenders out there on his every word, and guys who can attack the Steelites or anyone who disagrees with him.

    Tim, just an FYI, I won’t be coming to get you like a boogy man in the night so do worry about any security. Your safe! 🙂

  20. Walt, its always everybody else, right. Tim is a hypocrite and no Presbyterian who thinks he is Paul Revere, Gus is mentally deranged, Kevin has a loud mouth, etc. Whats the common denominator. You. Projection, thats how you deal with your sin, order up a 50 page complaint, then hide behind your church walls, call in your guys to make excuses for your behavior. Ya, I got booted from here, and I deserved it. But I was repentant of my behavior. You have gotten more slack than anyone here, yet have you returned in kind, no. You assainate a man’s character for the simple fact he disagrees with 2nd reformation positions, or more importantly has exposed them. Instead of throwing ad hominem bombs, why dont you just make an argument. Quit being a drama king, quit attacking your brothers in Christ. We believe the gospel of grace Walt and seek to obey God’s law. You are supposed to believe the best about us. Instead of attacking Tim’s motives, or Gus’s mental state, or me, show some grace and love Walt. You are an educated and bright guy. Instead of judging everyone here, believe the best about them. Try it Walt. God bless. K

    1. Ya thats why you are in your sect. You would love to ” put me in a collar” But im 6’4 250 and a black belt in karate, so you aint putting me in anything. Try treating people with respect brother. What a novelty huh. Walt, I appreciate all you have taught me about the 2nd reformation and the info you have provided. Just cool the attacks on people. Have a great day. K

      1. KEVIN said: “Ya thats why you are in your sect. You would love to ” put me in a collar” But im 6’4 250 and a black belt in karate, so you aint putting me in anything. Try treating people with respect brother. What a novelty huh. Walt, I appreciate all you have taught me about the 2nd reformation and the info you have provided. Just cool the attacks on people. ”

        Sounds like Roy D. Mercer–“How big a boy are you, anyway?”
        Who needs Catholics to bash when we’ve got each other, right?

  21. Walt, do you think its your job to characterize everyone here. Who do you think you are? Like my wife always telks me, no one cares what you think. Got that Walt. We know you dont consider us believers. I have never got a hi brother how are you from you. Thats o.k. You run down everbody you meet on here. How is it that you are are omniscient and know everyone’s motives. You have no idea how I feel about Pastor Price or the Scottish Reformers. I think they are great men of the faith. And I have no interest in protecting anyone’s position ( Tim) . But, no I will not sit back and watch you call another believer a hypocrite and question their motives. You dont know his motives. And if I get booted again for that, ill live with it. You just made many accusations about me, but you dont know me Walt. I have emailed you personally thanking you for information. I have told you I pray for you. And you send me 1 word answers. I understand that if Im not a Covenanter, you consider me not worth your time. I can live with that. But please stop attacking men’s characters. I will not say anymore. Blessings K

  22. Bob said:

    “The thing is, I have never known any Catholics that treat Presbyterians the way that Presbyterians treat Catholics.”

    You should take some time to do a little bit more research into history as you might be a bit surprised what you would find among the history of Catholics against Presbyterians.

    1. I am not talking about in history. Catholics and Protestants were killing each other. The war is over. I am talking about today.

        1. CK–
          You said: ” but, but, but….what about the crusades!!!!!”

          You have to understand, back then, scorched earth policy was the norm. Heresy was worthy of the death penalty. The Jews thought Christianity was heresy, so they killed them. Romans thought Christianity was heresy, so they killed them. And so it was with Christendom. If you didn’t believe how the King believed, then you promoted heresy and you ran the risk of disturbing the peace and causing unrest.

          Today, Catholics are taught to shun the death penalty for any reason.

  23. Tim, what would be interesting to know is if there were a better word in the launguage that could have meant forms of government.? It seems, saying Daniel meant a certain kingdom by each beast is different than saying he meant city council ex. by kings. For instance, we know Mary had normal sexual relations with Joseph because scripture tells us he kept her pure until she concieved Jesus. And the word for children meant children, there being another word for nephew. In the same way, it would be interesting to know what words were available for forms of government. I do think that , as you point out, kings is used by Daniel to mean only kings, and the beasts are kingdoms in every instance. So to comport another meaning would seem odd. Im puzzled why the 2nd Reformation position found ” forms of govenment ” the normal sense. It can be argued they comported their bias ( view on civil govenment to the text). Tim, I have a question. If the WCF says ” reformed and always being reformed ” then why cant your position become an accepted position? Must there be precedent? Who decided to remove that the Papacy is no longer antichrist from the confession? Thanks K

    1. TIM–
      KEVIN said to you: “It seems, saying Daniel meant a certain kingdom by each beast is different than saying he meant city council ex. by kings… I do think that , as you point out, kings is used by Daniel to mean only kings, and the beasts are kingdoms in every instance. So to comport another meaning would seem odd.”

      That is my point exactly. Why would you maintain that diocesan vicars would be considered kings by Daniel? Even on a stretch that the bishop of Rome could be considered the “little horn” coming up amongst the ten “horns” or bishops of the other sees, for it to be consistent with Danielic prophesy, those horns are equated with the toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Those toes are part of the feet, which would place them as kings of the Roman Empire, which is the fourth empire not the fictitious fifth.

      It is clear that these inconsistencies completely undermine your theory of the Fourteenth Diocese and the Fifth Empire.
      As you would say:
      “That is not what Nebuchadnezzar saw.”

          1. Tim, forgive me if ai ask stupid questions sometimes. Will you confirm this if im right, that ten horns come up as ten kings within a kingdom ( fourth beast) and kings or horns have to be the vicars of the dioceeses because when thru history do this many kings come up at one time in one kingdom. You agree? K

      1. Bob,

        I do not believe I have ever said the Toes on the Statue are the fifth empire. The Horns are indeed Roman, emerging as they do from the Fourth Beast. In the same way, the Toes are Iron and Clay, emerging as they do from the Iron & Clay period of the Roman Empire. The Horns and Toes are Roman.

        Is it your understanding that the ten horns of Daniel 7 came up one after another, a succession of ten Roman Kings rather than ten kings that emerge simultaneously as the fragments of the Roman empire?

        Thanks,

        Tim

        1. TIM–
          You asked: “Is it your understanding that the ten horns of Daniel 7 came up one after another, a succession of ten Roman Kings rather than ten kings that emerge simultaneously as the fragments of the Roman empire?”

          It is my understanding that kings are kings and not viceroys of the king. Diocletian is a king in which he delegated governors in a tetrarchy and the tetrarchy delegated viceroys in diocese. No matter which way you slice it, Diocletian is still the king. Viceroys are not kings. They were not kings under the Constantinian Dynasty, nor the Valentinian Dynasy, nor the Theodosian Dynasty, etc. etc. all the way to Constantine XI.
          Ergo, the bishops of the diocese are not kings either, so the bishop of Rome cannot possibly be a king. For the “little horn” to be the Pope would be inconsistent with Danielic prophesy. Pontifex Maximus is the Roman High Priest not an emperor or king. The duty of the Pontiff was to crown emperors, not become one. That is why Gracian removed it from his title and why Constantine gave it to the Roman bishop.

          1. Actually they are rulers of their dioceese. Bob, where else in history have you seen 10 people rule in someone’s kingdom. You got to admit 14 – 3 = 11. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck ………… Tim’s interpretation is quite compelling imho. L

          2. Bob, but the question was,

            “Is it your understanding that the ten horns of Daniel 7 came up one after another, a succession of ten Roman Kings rather than ten kings that emerge simultaneously as the fragments of the Roman empire?”

            Thanks,

            Tim

          3. TIM and KEVIN–
            Kevin said “Actually they are rulers of their dioceese. Bob, where else in history have you seen 10 people rule in someone’s kingdom. You got to admit 14 – 3 = 11. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck ………… Tim’s interpretation is quite compelling imho. L”

            1. That still doesn’t make them kings while Roman emperors are sitting on the throne. They are still subordinate. And Daniel never mentions 14 anything, at all, at any time or anywhere. That is pure speculation on Tim’s part.
            2. The “remnants” of the Roman Empire lasted until Constantine XI in the 15th century, plain and simple. The capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Byzantium with Constantine and never went back to Rome–ever.
            Clearly, all of this disqualifies the Papacy being the anti-Christ, in accordance with Danielic prophesy.

            Tim said:
            Bob, but the question was,
            “Is it your understanding that the ten horns of Daniel 7 came up one after another, a succession of ten Roman Kings rather than ten kings that emerge simultaneously as the fragments of the Roman empire?”

            It doesn’t matter, now does it? Whether they came up in succession or simultaneously, that anti-Christ=papacy piece just doesn’t fit the puzzle no matter which way you turn it. It may look like the right piece, and it may come really close to fitting, but unless you trim part of the piece to make it fit, it still isn’t the right piece.

            If you ask me if I have an idea of who the ten kings are that Daniel is referring to, I haven’t a clue. And clearly no one else knows who they are either. You have come up with a really good sounding theory, and like Kevin says, it has good flow. I do not doubt your literary abilities. Like I have said in the past and still say, you are very good at what you do. Many a legend was made by those using poetic license, ie. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins with “Left Behind”. Billy the Kid would not have been the Western star that he is today if it weren’t for writers like that. I mean, who ever heard of William McCarty, right?

          4. Thanks, Bob. I’m trying to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Back in December you said,

            “He probably should have destroyed them instead of just uproot or subdue them. Instead, they join the other seven to desolate the whore.”

            That sounds like the ten are simultaneous, if, as you say, the three uprooted horns join the other seven to desolate the whore. That would mean at least ten came up together, if I’m reading you correctly.

            Also, can you help me understand when Constantine transferred the title of Pontiff to the Bishop of Rome? I was not aware of that being transferred until Theodosian applied it to Damasus in 380 A.D., and then in Gratian renounced the title two years later.

            Thanks,

            Tim

          5. TIM–
            You said:
            “That sounds like the ten are simultaneous, if, as you say, the three uprooted horns join the other seven to desolate the whore. That would mean at least ten came up together, if I’m reading you correctly.”

            Like I said, it doesn’t matter. Your building your case on false premise.

            You also said: “Also, can you help me understand when Constantine transferred the title of Pontiff to the Bishop of Rome? I was not aware of that being transferred until Theodosian applied it to Damasus in 380 A.D., and then in Gratian renounced the title two years later.”

            I read it in your favourite online reference Wikipedia:
            “The Pontifex Maximus (Latin, literally: “greatest pontiff” or “greatest bridge-builder”) was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian[1] (reigned 375–383) who, however, then decided to omit the words “pontifex maximus” from his title.[2][3] It was the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, who transferred his title of pontifex maximus to the Christian bishop of Rome.

          6. Bob, do I understand you correctly when you say that what you say doesn’t matter? You wrote on two separate occasions,

            BOB: “He probably should have destroyed them instead of just uproot or subdue them. Instead, they join the other seven to desolate the whore.”

            BOB: “It doesn’t matter … Whether they came up in succession or simultaneously.”

            If you believe it doesn’t matter whether they came up simultaneously or in succession, why then did you have them all coming up together, i.e., the three join the other seven and desolate the whore? If they don’t come up together, how do they join together to desolate the whore? If it doesn’t matter, why did you say they joined together? Do you have an opinion, or just a succession of contradictory statements? Or maybe there are two Bobs.

            In any case, Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns “receive power as kings one hour with the beast”. Do you think that speaks of succession or simultaneity?

            Thanks,

            Tim

          7. Bob, you quoted wiki:

            Wiki: ” It was the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, who transferred his title of pontifex maximus to the Christian bishop of Rome.“

            Wiki (same article): “From the time of Theodosius I (r 379–395), the emperors no longer appear in the dignity of pontiff, but the title was later applied to the Christian bishop of Rome

            Only one of those two comments comes with an actual citation with evidence. Which of those two statements do you suppose is true? The one that says the title was transferred by Constantine, or the one that says the title was transfered to the Christian Bishop of Rome after Theodosius took the crown?

            Thanks,

            Tim

          8. TIM–
            You said: “If you believe it doesn’t matter whether they came up simultaneously or in succession, why then did you have them all coming up together, i.e., the three join the other seven and desolate the whore? If they don’t come up together, how do they join together to desolate the whore? If it doesn’t matter, why did you say they joined together? Do you have an opinion, or just a succession of contradictory statements? Or maybe there are two Bobs. (or maybe you’re just being obtuse)
            In any case, Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns “receive power as kings one hour with the beast”. Do you think that speaks of succession or simultaneity?”

            TIM! You are missing the point entirely. You are bringing up statements that are about a different argument altogether. This conversation is about who the ten kings represent. Who do you believe those ten kings (horns) are? Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns receive power AS kings and Dan 7:24 says they ARE kings.
            So which is it, do the ten horns only receive power as kings or are they really kings? Remember, it has to be consistent with Danielic prophesy.

            And you also said: “Only one of those two comments comes with an actual citation with evidence. Which of those two statements do you suppose is true? The one that says the title was transferred by Constantine, or the one that says the title was transfered to the Christian Bishop of Rome after Theodosius took the crown?”

            Well, looks like WiKipedia needs a little work then. But, again, you’re missing the point. The duty of the Pontiff was to crown emperors, not be emperors, which is as it should be. Pontifex Maximus is supposed to be ecclesiastical, not imperial. That is why I maintain that the Roman emperors were usurping Church authority in Church matters.

          9. Bob,

            You wrote,

            “TIM! You are missing the point entirely. You are bringing up statements that are about a different argument altogether. This conversation is about who the ten kings represent.”

            Actually, the conversation is about a succession of kings. It started on January 18 when you cited my statement about succession of kings vs. succession of forms of government, and then you responded with an argument that the diocesan vicars can’t be kings, and concluded,

            “And like I mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire had a succession of “kings” all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.”

            What I am trying to figure out is whether you believe the ten kings are ten in succession or are ten reigning at the same time. Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns “receive power as kings one hour with the beast,” which has all the kings coming up together at once. Yet you seem to believe Rome can only have one king at a time. And yet, as you have also said, those ten kings are Roman, and those ten kings collaborate to desolate the whore.

            So what is your position? Ten kings in succession? Or ten kings at once?

            Thanks,

            Tim

  24. Gus, I have also apologized in an email to Tim and have pledged to move on. I can tell you Tim is a fair man, and will not hold anything against you. I cant tell you how much I appreciate the time you have taken here to educate all of us. You didnt know, but I knew better than to rebuke Walt. It was fruitless and I plan on discussing eschatology. It seems like you have come to the 2 strike theory of Tim’s also. There is a reformed site called Green Baggins. Lane has a current article on Revelations and eschatology. I alerted the reformed there to come and read Tim’s thesis. If Tim’ s research is correct, it really cements many things for me, like where is the church, who is antichrist, earthly dominion versus heavenly kingdom. It just makes sense for so many reasons. Im really interested to read the conclusion. For me, it may be easier. Since Im realatively new to the Reformed camp, I feel like I dont bring hero bias. Im trying to read Tim’s articles and compare the scriptures. Having said this, Im glad you are here on Tim’s site, and thanks for helping me out. K

  25. __________________________________
    CK
    JANUARY 26, 2016 AT 4:53 PM
    Dr Gus – I like your reasoning. Catholics act in an unchristian manner towards one another, therefore you and Presbyterians are justified in being unchristian towards Catholics.

    Heck, you are elect anyway. It’s not like it matters right?
    ____________________________________
    This was certainly not my intent, so to make it fundamentally clear, I well help you, and pledge all that i have and am to assist you should you decide to leave your false religion. Violence is never justified. I have not been unchristian towards you, or any other Romanists. That includes my extended family and my mother and brother. What you call “unchristian” is simply my poor attempt to call you to repentance. If i have done a poor job of it, I repent. YET not once have you answered my challenges. Do you really think going to Mass and confession is going to change who you are? It hasnt till now.

    Regrettably,
    Gus

  26. Gus, ” do you really think going to mass and confession is going to change who you are” This is a wise statement. I think you should be commended on how you have extended yourself to the Romanists here. I can tell you Gus, I have made the mistake of continuing to engage CK and BoB. CK hates election and God’s soveriegnty imho. Catholics do. MacArthur in his 15 minute sermon on election tells the biblical story how Jesus was preaching in a the synagog and the Jews were admiring his teaching, until he did something peculiar. He closed the book and told a story how God sent a prophet in a 3 year phamon to one widow, and one leper, passing over 3000 widows, and many lepers. When He finished the story, the Jews were incensed with Him. Self righteouness hates election and soveriegnty. It thinks it thinks God is unjust to choose some of his enemies and pass over others of his enemies. Instead of CK being thankful for God’s election, she feels like its shortcutting, cutting the line. Why? Because you earn your justification , just like you earn your place in the world. There is a saint pecking order. In Romanism you got to get there, and if you dont get there , you dont get there. But we reformed understand that we can never achieve God’s righteouness, because we are bad, real bad. Christ hadvto come do for us what we could not do for ourselves, namely live the law in our place, fulfill all righteouness, and simply give it to us as a gift. We are thankful for God’s mercy and grace. The first being God not giving us what we do deserve, the second is God giving us what we dont deserve. 1 Corinthians 1:30 ” for it is by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom, righteouness, sanctification and redemption. Its finished. We are just living the miracle. K

  27. Kevin,
    I do not regret being here and helping you and confronting them. I do regret that they have not listened. WE will all listen once we die. There are no Romanists or Presbyterians in heaven, only repentant sinners. As to Walt, his is a sad case of strong delusion but he is better left alone. He will come, and he will go, because he is an unstable man double minded and double hearted. Calling me insane is the testimony of a man who refuses to see the damage that his sect has done. When i have a woman crying on the phone telling me how the Edmonton Steelites destroyed her family, i have a hard time believing she is lying and they are pristine. God will judge. The strange thing is, that my missives about them have emphasised the good that they have done–not the evil. Go back and read them over! But when your “pope” and magisterium is being attacked its safest to defend them–rather than admit there maybe some truth involved. I dont say these things lightly, and it happened over 20 years ago, and i made my condemnation conditional on IF they had not changed. Sadly, I have been confronted with that kind of fanatical blindness before–In ME! When i was in my 20s i was a charismatic and vociferously condemned anyone who stood against speaking in tongues. I called them 2nd class citizens. I shall do the only thing i can do, and pray for Walt.

    Tim, impresses me deeply and i will readily admit that he has me convinced. I would rather be a junk yard dog to defend the truth then a spineless jelly fish who acquiesces to everything. His brand of historicism makes everything fit exegetically. The fact that he sees what others have not seen is not a testament to his genius or intelligence, but to the grace of God. If I deny that, i must affirm that Luther and Calvin were deluded. There are times, that God speaks to ONE man about some particular truth in that generation. WHEN that happens it is a mark of judgement on a civilization and usually indicative of impending collapse. God used INDIVIDUAL prophets to warn Israel and Judah; he used the Huguenots and Coligny to warn France, he used Wesley and Whitefield to warn England. He used Knox to warn Scotland, and in the case of America he has used two men, Gordon H. Clark and John Robbins. John was a friend of mine, and when he died I knew it meant judgement. He died about five years ago. God took him, because it would have broken his heart to see the defection of the church.

    Isaiah 57:1 The righteous man perishes, and no one lays it to heart; devout men are taken away, while no one understands. For the righteous man is taken away from calamity;
    2 he enters into peace; they rest in their beds who walk in their uprightness.
    3 But you, draw near, sons of the sorceress, offspring of the adulterer and the loose woman.
    4 Whom are you mocking? Against whom do you open your mouth wide and stick out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, the offspring of deceit,
    5 you who burn with lust among the oaks, under every green tree, who slaughter your children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks?
    6 Among the smooth stones of the valley is your portion; they, they, are your lot; to them you have poured out a drink offering, you have brought a grain offering. Shall I relent for these things?
    7 On a high and lofty mountain you have set your bed, and there you went up to offer sacrifice.
    8 Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your memorial; for, deserting me, you have uncovered your bed, you have gone up to it, you have made it wide; and you have made a covenant for yourself with them, you have loved their bed, you have looked on nakedness.
    9 You journeyed to the king with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol.
    10 You were wearied with the length of your way, but you did not say, “It is hopeless”; you found new life for your strength, and so you were not faint.
    11 Whom did you dread and fear, so that you lied, and did not remember me, did not lay it to heart? Have I not held my peace, even for a long time, and you do not fear me?
    12 I will declare your righteousness and your deeds, but they will not profit you.
    13 When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you! The wind will carry them all off, a breath will take them away. But he who takes refuge in me shall possess the land and shall inherit my holy mountain.
    (Isa. 57:1-13 ESV)

    1. CK–
      You said: “That believe what the king believes or else was crazy.”

      To us today who have no sovereign lording over us seems far fetched. The liberty we enjoy here is altogether different from those days. A king demanded loyal subjects. And to be a loyal subject, one must be obedient. And to be completely obedient, one’s heart must be in the right place–in line with the king.
      It is not that different from what Jesus our King demands from us as Christians. Love God with all your heart, soul, and strength; and love your neighbour as yourself. Believe what your King believes and obey His commandments.
      It’s common sense, really.
      Jesus said “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” –Mat 6:33

  28. 10 final horns, another comes up (11) and before which ( meaning right before little horn comes up) 3 others fell leaving 11 and a total of 14. Its not that hard. Also, consider that the 10 kings are also refered to as horns in Daniel 7 . So in this instance king has a different meaning. Since we can identify the little horn as papal Rome who was more stout than his fellows, it seems resonable to attribute the other horns or kings to the dioceese within its power. And that’s what im saying, the number 14 points to papal Rome. Since when the little horn comes up he subdues 3 sees. Imho

    1. KEVIN–
      I know all this. I have read Tim’s work.
      Let me put it another way. If the little horn is the Bishop of Rome, he rose up among 10 Bishops of the Church–the other 10 horns, right? No matter how you slice it, the “empire” ends up with 11. I get that.
      Now, here’s the rub. The ten bishops of the Church rule their own separate diocese, right? But if you read the writings of these bishops, do any of them claim to be a king? Not on your life! Who is their king? They will all proclaim Jesus Christ as their king. Why? Because they are only bishops–servants of the Lord!
      Daniel clearly pictures the ten horns to be of the Roman Empire–an earthly kingdom. Those bishops, if you and Tim and Dr. Gus, and I as well agree, are members of the spiritual Kingdom of Jesus Christ, not Rome.
      It is perfectly clear that disqualifies them to be kings, if you want to be consistent with Danielic prophesy. Any thing else would be, as you say, arbitrary.

  29. Bob, I think you have to interpret the ten kings or horns in the greater context of 1. someone who ” will speak great things against the most high” now if the Roman church substitutes itself ( antichrist meaning in place of ) for Christ and its doctrines are false, the we can say indeed that as this little horn arose it indeed was the another king that arose among the ten. Also, we know he will wear out saints of the most high. Rome did that to the Waldensians, Albegensies etc. And the think to change times and the law. If all these things describe Roman Catholicism, as we believe it does, then the horns or kings must be the dioceese. Now, you can reject the rest of the context that necessitates this interpretation that I provided, and in thay case you would be right. But if what follows in that section describes papal Rome, then the kings necessitate Tim’s interpretation as diocesse. K

  30. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, I think you have to interpret the ten kings or horns in the greater context of 1. someone who ” will speak great things against the most high” now if the Roman church substitutes itself ( antichrist meaning in place of ) for Christ and its doctrines are false, the we can say indeed that as this little horn arose it indeed was the another king that arose among the ten.”

    But is that interpretation consistent with Daniel? In light of what you just said, that interpretation would make mere bishops the same as kings. Here is your dialog with Tim last week:

    Kevin
    JANUARY 17, 2016 AT 9:38 AM
    Tim, if I inderstand you correctly, we see a patern of ” kings” identified in danielic eschatalogical chronological transition. And since this patern is consistent, it would be arbitrary to refer to the 7 kings as ” forms of government” so King means King in Danielic speak. To suddenly look for other meaning in this one instance would seem to be outside. Thanks K
    REPLY
    Timothy F. Kauffman
    JANUARY 17, 2016 AT 10:18 AM
    Yes, that is my meaning. Barring some clarifying direction from John, we ought to look to Daniel to see how he treats a succession of kings. Here John is clearly borrowing from Daniel. To deviate from Daniel’s approach without any contrary contextual indication from John would be, as you say, “arbitrary.”
    Tim

    It is crystal clear that a diocesan vicarate system with bishops as servants in a spiritual kingdom with Jesus Christ as King, bears no resemblance to an earthly Roman Empire with Augustus Caesars as kings who consider themselves divine and should be worshiped as gods. To interpret that those bishops were the ten horns would be deviating from Daniel’s approach. And he certainly gives no contrary contextual indication for such an interpretation.

  31. Bob, oh my word, Tim brought up Revelations 17:12. It says specifically the ten horns are ten kings that receive their authority with the beast for an hour. This is screaming the papal Rome. Where do ten of anything receive authority in history. This can be no other than the dioceese. Maybe Tim will answer in what way he thinks a vicar is a king. I can come up with a number of reasons in this context. For instance they receive authority over their area. The 4th kingdom is passed on from a ruler to the beast and these. So the pope is the king of the 5th earthly kingdom with his little kings. Being crowned Pontifus Maximus, he is king, and by extension so are they. Why? Because they are also considered horns, therefore kings ,not as stout. Tim please correct anything Im wrong on. Thanks K

    1. KEVIN–
      Are you saying the ten kings(horns) are Christian bishops, too?
      Really? When was this supposed to have happened? Were these bishops corrupt enough to put Jesus aside as their king and honor Caesar as their king?

      1. Bob, I dont know how they can be “Christian “bishops since they proceed from the pagan Roman Empire passed on to the pagan pope. I believe Tim identified this as the passing on of the title Pontifus Maximus. Since these kings and the other king wear out the saints of the Most High, it seems to me these would be anti- Christ. Since his doninion will be taken away and destroyed, im guessing these vicars / kings aint part of the true church. Bob, at some point you have to allow yourself to see Roman Catholicism as receiving or arising as Daniel says from the fourth kingdom. This would make it a 5th earthly pagan kingdom who is given doninion over the saints. This cant be Christian Bishops. Eventually his kingdom/ earthly dominion is destroyed by God and we the saints receive the enchilada. Because the kings are also called horns, and because they come up together, this eliminates chronological literal kings. The one thing that jumped out at me in Tim’s theory is the comparison of the horns and the dioceese and the little horn being more stout tgan his fellows and putting down thee horns. Im mean this would turn a dispensationalist into a historist. To me itsva no brainer. It cant mean anything other that that. Daniel litteraly describes the rise pf RC even down to numbering the dioceese and describing how 3 were plucked by the little horn. You cant make this stuff up. K

          1. Dasher, Dancer, Prancer Vixon, Comet, Cupid, Donner and Blitzed. The most famous and more stout than his fellows is Rudolph. Lol I mean do you actually want the names of the Vicars? What do you mean can I name them. My guess is Tim can probably name them. He’s got a memory like an Elephant. The point is they came up together? You agree? Tim’s asked you that a few times. Thanks.

          2. Kevin’s FUNNY! I gave an extensive answer below. Let’s see if Tim really has an idea of who those kings are.

  32. TIM–
    You said: “Actually, the conversation is about a succession of kings. It started on January 18 when you cited my statement about succession of kings vs. succession of forms of government, and then you responded with an argument that the diocesan vicars can’t be kings, and concluded,
    “And like I mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire had a succession of “kings” all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.”
    What I am trying to figure out is whether you believe the ten kings are ten in succession or are ten reigning at the same time. Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns “receive power as kings one hour with the beast,” which has all the kings coming up together at once. Yet you seem to believe Rome can only have one king at a time. And yet, as you have also said, those ten kings are Roman, and those ten kings collaborate to desolate the whore.

    So what is your position? Ten kings in succession? Or ten kings at once?”

    Ok. I see where you are going with this, now.
    I said:
    “And like I mentioned earlier, the Roman Empire had a succession of “kings” all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.”

    My position is this–the Roman Empire had a succession of kings all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.
    You make the claim that:
    Revelation 17:12 says those ten horns “receive power as kings one hour with the beast,” which has all the kings coming up together at once.
    That is not necessarily what that means. How long is “one hour”? And who are these kings? Can you name them? And did they themselves claim to be kings? And does Daniel concur?
    I maintain that Christian bishops cannot be kings simply by the nature of the office. They are servants of the spiritual Kingdom of the King Jesus Christ. Whatever power you claim they may have been given, it can only be ecclesiastical and not imperial. These are the guys that Daniel describes as ” a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. ”
    I don’t see Daniel confusing the ten horns with the kingdom that will endure forever.

    1. Bob, I understand that your position is “the Roman Empire had a succession of kings all the way till the Turks finally conquered the Roman Empire in 1453 AD.” That is an answer to a question that I did not ask. What is your position on the ten kings? Ten kings in succession? Or ten at the same time?

      Thanks,

      Tim

      1. TIM–
        You asked: ” What is your position on the ten kings? Ten kings in succession? Or ten at the same time?

        I’m still trying to figure that out. Here’s the deal.
        Let’s dissect Revelation 17 a little bit:
        Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
        Tim says these kings are Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba.

        Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
        Now let’s see, the beast is the eighth king (Roman Emperor) who comes from the seven……? So out of Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba, which one is the one that goeth into perdition? He is described as “was, and is not; and shall ascend”.
        Ok. If this king “was and is not” at the time of John’s vision, then he must be one of the five kings who have fallen–Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, or Claudius. Got any clue as to who that might be? It is interesting to note that “they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” That tells me that only the ones who are the non-elect will be in awe over this guy. What does that mean????
        A Roman Emperor who died (Tim includes Julius Caesar) who was emperor before Nero comes back somehow and bedazzles the heathen folk.

        Now here’s where it gets murky:
        Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
        Ok. We have a Roman Emperor who died before Nero who has now come back from the dead that will go into perdition. But only the worldly pagan people are amazed at this. And at this time, there are ten kings without a kingdom. Personally I don’t understand how they can be kings without having a kingdom, but that is what Revelation says.
        So, these kingdomless kings are given power as kings for an hour with the risen-from-the-dead Roman Emperor who could be Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, or Claudius. (My money’s on Caligula because he was the craziest one of the bunch. But I really haven’t a clue.) And since this risen emperor now “undead”, there’s no telling how many generations he can last. Now the questions here are:
        1. How long is this “hour” that is mentioned here? What year did it start and what year did it end? If this can be determined, the answers to the next question can be found.
        2. Who are the ten kings and what are there names. This should be recorded in history somewhere.
        If the “hour” is many years long, then the kings could be in succession. If the “hour” is only one generation, then the ten kings would have to come up at the same time. To me, there are too many unanswered questions for me to have a position.
        And here’s the kicker:
        The beast is the eighth king. Does that mean he is next in line after Galba? It doesn’t fit. Otho didn’t last as long as Galba. Maybe these really short lived emperors don’t count. So the next in line would be Vespasian. That could very well be because he was on the throne when Jerusalem was sacked and the Temple was destroyed. And the generation who knew Jesus certainly witnessed this event.
        Or it could be Domitian. His rule started well, but gradually declined into terror. Jews and Christians were heavily persecuted toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Some viewed him as a cruel and paranoid tyrant. (Sounds a lot like Caligula.) After his death, Domitian’s memory was condemned to oblivion by the Roman Senate. I can see how he could be construed as “goeth into perdition”.

        But if I am reading it right, the beast of Revelation 17 is a Roman Emperor, not the Bishop of Rome. What do I know?
        I’m just a troll.

  33. TIM–
    So what do you say?
    You’ve named the seven kings of verse 10: Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba.
    You have even named the king that you believe was on the throne when John received his vision: Nero.
    Now then:
    1. What is the name of the eighth king who is of the seven, who was, and is not, and will ascend and go into perdition?
    2. What are the names of the ten kingdomless kings?
    3.How long is the prophetic hour that they have received power as kings with the eighth king?

    What say ye?

  34. KEVIN–
    You said: “Hi Bob, you said to Tim ‘I dont believe there is any condemning difference in what Catholics believe and what I believe’ You probably know this but , you are correct that there is no difference between what you believe and what Catholics believe, but you are incorrect according to the Reformed reading of scripture that its not condemning. It is unequivocally clear from scripture that those who believe Catholic doctrines, that their works are meritorious in justification are not saved Christians. God bless k”

    Ok. Your opinion is fare enough according to what the Reformed way of reading scripture tells you and by the discipline you have learned.

    Now, let’s say it is true that faith is all you need to be saved. Nothing else matters. One can sin after that and all will be forgiven because Christ has blotted out all of your sin by his blood–past, present, and future. There is nothing else one has to do. It’s all been done. That is what you believe to be true, no matter what, right?
    Rom 10:9ff that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

    That is the Gospel.

    Now if that is true, then Catholics are saved, no matter what.
    They call on the Name of the Lord when they pray and when they worship every Sunday. They believe in their hearts and confess with their mouth that God raised Jesus from the dead by professing the Nicaean Creed or the Apostles Creed every Sunday. And the Presbyterian Church USA recognizes their baptism to be a valid Christian baptism, even infants–not that it matters–but they do.

    By your logic, even in their so called bread worshipping idolatry, which they believe in their hearts is the Body and Blood of Christ, they are still saved, and, although separated, they are your brothers in Christ, no matter what. Say what you will, but that is your logic.

    1. What Kevin said is necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary to use liquid to make a cake, but it is not sufficient. What is implied, and needs to be made explicit is, that if you confess with your mouth because you believe with your heart, the motive is that you depend on Christ’s merit to be saved and not your own. Roman Catholics can SAY they believe in the resurrection, and they can SAY that they have faith, but their saying it does not make it so. A Mormon according to your logic would also be saved, as would a Jehovah’s Witness, and a Christadelphian. They ALL say “Jesus is Lord” and believe with their hearts. BUT the 4 examples above, Romanist, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness and Christadelphian do not believe in the Godman who died to merit their salvation which they procure by simply believing. They all add or take away from the Gospel.

      KJ Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
      5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 6:1-11 NKJ)

      21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Cor. 15:21-22 NKJ)

      8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
      11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3:8-11 NKJ)

      3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Pet. 1:3-5 NKJ)

      Abusing Kevin’s logic, because you are ignoring the hidden premise and vigorously asserting that Kevin is hoisted on his own petard is not an adequate nor is it a valid argument. You are blustering.

      Gus Gianello, Issachar Biblical Institute, issachar.institute@gmail.com

  35. DR GUS–
    You said: “That if you confess with your mouth because you believe with your heart, the motive is that you depend on Christ’s merit to be saved and not your own.”

    Right! From the CCC:
    2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
    2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.

    Who’s merit is it? God’s through Christ!

    You also said: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

    Right! Christians should act with Faith, Hope, and Love. But the greatest of these is love.

    And you said: “For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection.”

    Right again! One is baptized into his death and risen into new life. Once baptized, we enter the Church as members of a brotherhood, co-heirs with Christ according to the promise. If the Presbyterian Church USA acknowledges that validity of the Catholic baptism, then they recognize that brotherhood.
    Anything else is just your dissenting opinion.

    You also said: “Roman Catholics can SAY they believe in the resurrection, and they can SAY that they have faith, but their saying it does not make it so.”

    Right! That dual-edged sword cuts both directions. Presbyterians can SAY they believe this and they can SAY they believe that, but it’s their actions that manifest their words.
    What is the will of the Father?
    Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength(faith).
    AND
    Love your neighbor as yourself(works).

    1. Bob, thats not what 2008 says. ” man’s merit is due to God” no, you conviently left out 2006 merit = recompense owed . Its partly grace and partly works. You must cooperate in justification, hence recompense owed. It says Christ’s merits arent sufficient, but your charcter has to be added to it . Roman Catholics merit the merit of Christ. You think thats grace alone, but it aint. You said man’s merit is due to God, but the last sentence in 2005says ” Merit in the first place is to be ascribed to God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. ” Bob, your in a state of denial, and its more than just a river in Egypt. Catholic doctrine indeed smuggles their character into God’s work of grace. You can keep telling yourself that man’s merit is due to God. But thats not what Trent says. But you certainly have yourself convinced. God bless. K

      1. Kevin – Bob, thats not what 2008 says. ” man’s merit is due to God” no, you conviently left out 2006 merit = recompense owed .

        Me – No merit means reward.

        Kevin – Its partly grace and partly works.

        Me – You almost got it. Here’s what the CCC says “The fatherly action of God is FIRST on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the FIRST place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

        Kevin – You must cooperate in justification, hence recompense owed.

        Me – Yes you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified (be given eternal life). See Rom 2:6-11 below.

        Are you saying one does not need to cooperate with God?
        You don’t need to carry your cross, feed the poor, love your neighbor? Weird. Catholics and St Paul say that if we do these things under the impetus of God’s grace he will reward us.

        Btw, Reward = merit. You don’t get to define what we mean.

        Romans 2:6-11New International Version (NIV)

        6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

        Kevin – It says Christ’s merits arent sufficient, but your charcter has to be added to it . Roman Catholics merit the merit of Christ. You think thats grace alone, but it aint. You said man’s merit is due to God, but the last sentence in 2005says ” Merit in the first place is to be ascribed to God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. ” Bob, your in a state of denial, and its more than just a river in Egypt. Catholic doctrine indeed smuggles their character into God’s work of grace. You can keep telling yourself that man’s merit is due to God. But thats not what Trent says. But you certainly have yourself convinced. God bless. K

        Me – I guess you think St Paul thought God’s merit were insufficient also. I’ll make a leap of faith and go with St. Paul understanding and not yours.

        Thanks for trying though….

        1. Ck ” are you saying one does not need to cooperate with God” yes, one does not cooperate with God to be justified. Saved believers are justified solely by the blood and righteouness imputed to us by faith alone. 2 Corinthians 5: 21, Romans 5:19, 3:28, 11:6, 4:5, 5:1, 4:16, Galatians 2:16, 3:6. As the bishop of your own church Clement said, before it apostated, not by wisdom, or holy deeds, or anything in ourselves, but by faith the way God has always justified all men. Of course this is exactly what Paul taught ” not that of yourselves ” ” not of works” Ephessians 2:8. You should pull up the list on your search engine , statements by the early fathers on justification by faith alone. There are over 30 of them. The ones by Chrysostom are beautiful. We arent justified by anything we do orvthe Spirit does in us in sanctification. Please look at Hebrews 10:10, 1 Corinthians 1:30, 1 Corinthians 1: 3, Romans 8:28. Paul speaks of Sanctification and all of salvation in the past tense. It was all payed for at the cross. We arevjust living out the miracle as the Spirit makes us holy in sanctification. Paul, counted all his righteouness as dung, to be found in the righteouness that comes from God by faith. Philippians 3:9. Here is the great news of the gospel of scripture , God treats Christ as if He lived my life, and treats me as if I lived his. Or He treated his Son as of He committed every sin every one who would ever believe committed, and treated believers as if they we lived his life. Diogenisus said ” Oh Sweet exchange, that the sins of the many would be hid in the one, and that the righteouness of the one would cover the many.” This is the glorious doctrine of imputation and justification . Thanks

          1. Kevin are you saying Romans 2:6-11 is not inspired? Btw I agree with all the verses you listed. It fits nicely with Catholic theology. You can’t do anything to earn your salvation.

            You, on the other hand have to ignore Romans 2:6-11.

          2. CK, I will discuss Romans 2 with you only if you read Tim’ s articles on Romans 2. Romans 2 has to be understood in the context of the jealousy metaphor and in the context of the first 3 chapters. You can find these articles in the last thread Bob and I and Tim were on the other day. In fact Tim adresses a guy named Theodore I think in s great post. You said ” btw I agree with all the verses you listed, it fits nicely with Catholic theology . You cant do anything to earn your salvation. ” well then maybe you can explain this comment of yours ” yes you MUST cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ( be given eternal life.) How would you interpret this verse in light of your conditional justification ? Ephessians 1:7 ” ” in Him we HAVE redemption in his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace” Paul tells me I have been already redeemed and forgiven of my sins. Can you tell me how that coincides with ” you MUST cooperate with God to continue to be justified” ? Ephessians 1:7 says I have redemption and forgiveness. There are no conditions. How is this consistent as you say with Catholic teaching that your redemption is dependent on your cooperation ? Thanks. K

  36. DR GUS–
    And you also said: “Abusing Kevin’s logic, because you are ignoring the hidden premise and vigorously asserting that Kevin is hoisted on his own petard is not an adequate nor is it a valid argument.

    Right. And ignoring all of my valid arguments is ok.

    And you finally said: “You are blustering.”

    That’s what we trolls do. We bluster.

  37. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, thats not what 2008 says. ” man’s merit is due to God” no, you conviently left out 2006 merit = recompense owed . Its partly grace and partly works. You must cooperate in justification, hence recompense owed.

    Ok, well let’s see what 2006 ACTUALLY says:
    2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

    So 2006 is the general definition of merit. It also says it relates to the virtue of justice (God is a just God) conforming to the equality which governs it (according to God’s purpose).
    Good deserves reward.
    Evil deserves punishment.

    You also said: “You said man’s merit is due to God, but the last sentence in 2005says ” Merit in the first place is to be ascribed to God, and secondly to man’s collaboration.

    Ok, let’s see what 2005 ACTUALLY says:
    2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. –Council of Trent (1547)
    However, according to the Lord’s words “Thus you will know them by their fruits”(Mt 7:20) – reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.
    A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: “Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'”–Acts of the trial of St. Joan of Arc.

    Isn’t that interesting, Kevin, that the Catholic Church teaches that grace cannot be experienced or even known without faith.
    And let me repeat the statement from the Council of TRENT:
    “We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.”
    Works righteousness?
    Not even close!
    And look at the sentence that follows. It is a praise to God:
    “You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.
    It don’t get no plainer than that! And that is citing your buddy and mine, “Doctor of grace,” St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 102,7:PL 37,1321-1322.

    And you concluded: ” Catholic doctrine indeed smuggles their character into God’s work of grace. You can keep telling yourself that man’s merit is due to God. But thats not what Trent says. ”

    And I just showed you where Trent says exactly that–in unminced words. There ain’t no smuggling here. Just Kevin not doing his homework and relying on someone else who put ideas in his head that aren’t true.
    Now who’s up DeNial without a paddle, hmmmmm?

  38. CK said “reward =merit. You dont get to define what we mean” Well, if we all listened to you the Reformation would not have happened. Paul defined what we mean. You said reward =merit” but if God gave grace as a reward to an action or ability it wouldnt be a free gift, would it? Romans 6:23. 11:6. Salvation is a free gift, you cant earn it and we dont deserve it. CK, the gospel in medieval Rome was the enabling of men to be saved by obedience and compensation for their lack. They wrongly saw the righteouness needed for justification to be acumulated thru the sacraments ex opere operato. But they made a grave error, not knowing the law demands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience. You see we are bad, real bad, and He was good. Its hard to keep a good man down. Christ fulfilled the law by living it in our place, fulfilled all righteouness and gives it to us as a free gift. Thanks

    1. Kevin! Paul tells us we will be REWARDED WITH ETERNAL LIFE if we continue to do good works. We are given the free gift of grace but we can choose not to accept it. There are plenty of people who are given gifts but choose to throw them away. Paul’s writing below does not make sense if he believed the way you do.

      “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.”
      ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:6-8‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

        1. The laws written on our hearts and the laws of Christ. Those good works done IN Christ.

          What works do you think Paul is thinking of in Romans 2:6-8?

          1. I thought he was talking about loving God, loving your neighbor, obeying your parents, not coveting your neighbors goods, etc… Isn’t that what the Gentiles do in Romans 2:15, who “shew the work of the law written in their hearts”?

            Thanks,

            Tim

  39. CK–
    Said to Kevin: “Btw, Reward = merit. You don’t get to define what we mean.”

    That’s great! I’ve notice them trying to do that all the time.

  40. KEVIN–
    You said: “Paul defined what we mean.”
    No, actually Martin Luther defined for you what he thought Paul meant. And so did John Calvin and so did Huldrych Zwingli. Just like John Wesley did for us. It’s called Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, and Methodist.
    Catholics have their three-legged stool.
    Calvinists have their 5-point tulip.
    Methodists have their 4-legged stool.

  41. Bob, and whats your point? We all have to interpret the scriptures. You see Bob, when the Philippians jailer asked Paul what must I do to be saved, he wasnt thinking about his corporate badge. He wanted to know how to get to heaven. Paul said it is a trustworthy statement that Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I AM chief. I dont believe what I do because some man or church said it. I believe because I believe thats what the scriptures teach. For instance Romans 8:33 says ” who can bring a charge against God’s elect, it is God who justifies” but CK says ” yes you must cooperate with God if you continue to be justified ( given eternal life).” Romans 8 tells me I have been finally justified past tense and it is God alone who justifies, yet CK says no, its God plus your cooperation in instalments if I want etermal life. Then you and CK continue to say we all believe the same thing, lets just hold hands and sing kumbaya. But you see Bob, false teaching always cries disunity, intolerance, always. It always cries unloving. Tolerance can tolerate everything but intolerance, right. The bottom line Bob as I have told CK before, by your own words you dont believe in the gospel of scripture. Someday when you stand before God, you wont be able to hold up a sign that says I belong to the church Jesus Christ built. No, Gus saidvit very well, have you trusted the Godman and his merits alone. And we can unanimously tell you that to do that you will have to deny your goodness, deny the doctrines of Trent, repent and believe the gospel of scripture. We can also say that its under the soveriegnty of God. I want to say thanks for the discussion. I have to leave it here. Ill let you continue with Dr Gus and Tim, who know more than I will ever know. K

    1. Kevin,

      instead of sayin CK says this or that try this.

      Romans 8 tells me I have been finally justified past tense yet Timothy says I will be justified (future tense) IF….
      “if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
      ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:12‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

      He also has the audacity to say this “Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.”
      ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭4:16‬ ‭NABRE‬‬
      Hmmm. Will save. Sounds like a future event if you continue to do something. Sounds a lot like Paul in Romans 2:6-11.

      1. sO the bible contradicts itself and that’s why we need il papa who speaks ex cathedra and interprets the mysteries of the faith for us poor yokels. So, shut up, go to confession, receive the eucharist, pay and die. Then someone else will pay for your requiem mass so you can get out of purgatory a couple of thousand years earlier.

        Gus

        1. I don’t know about you, but Catholics can reconcile those seemingly contradictory statements without having to say that the author of those verses didn’t meant what they wrote.

      2. Those verses arent talking about justification. Iow, they arent perscriptive, they are descriptive of saved believer. Where in those warning verses in Timothy does it say CK ” you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ( given eternal life) ” ? CK, how can you tell me out of one side of your mouth ” I agree we dont earn salvation, its a gift” then turn around out of the other side and say you must do this ” to be given eternal life” amazing, truly amazing. The secret to Romans 2 is in reading Tim”articles on the jealousy metaphor Romans 2:13. God bless K.

        1. What?

          “if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
          ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:12‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

          its clearly saying if we persevere we will be saved and if we don’t we wil not be saved.

          Kevin have you persevered to the end?

          Kevin you must cooperate with God’s grace in order to persevere in good works. Are you saying we can do so without cooperating with His grace?

          1. Verse 13 ” if we are faithless He remains faithful for He cannot deny himself.” You conviently forgot this part. 2 Timothy 2:12 says , if we deny Him ( someone without saving faith) , if we persevere ( describing someone with saving faith). Again, where does this verse teach ” we must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ( be given eternal life) ” Your phrase describes Roman justification, right. Its conditional , right. If you this God will do that. It is true that true believers persevere, however that is never the grounds for our acceptance before God. God doesnt give grace as a result to an action or ability. Romans 3:24 ” justified freely as a gift by His grace” but Rome says ” you must cooperate with grace if you continued to be justified ( be given eternal life” So, it is clear here that Trent is at odds with scripture. You cant be justified freely by His grace as a gift, if you must do something to be justified. So what happened? The medieval church confused justification ( which is a one time forensic declaration based solely on Christ’s blood and righteouness ) and sanctification ( inner renewal). The word Daikaiousinae ( justification ) is a legal term, it can never mean ” you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ” get it . Why is this a big deal? Becsuse one is the gospel, and one isnt. Its the difference between heaven and hell. The righteouness needed for justification isnt acumulated inherently thru sacraments, its simply His righteouness counted to us by faith alone. Inner renewal is sanctification. K

          2. ” Kevin, you must cooperate with God’s grace in order to persevere in good works. Are you saying we can do so without cooperating with His grace. ” No, what Im saying is that you are describing sanctification, not justification. Here is where you went wrong ” if you want to continue to be justified ( BE given eternal life) .” I have ALREADY been given eternal life, Romans 10:9-10, 6:23, and already have redemption Ephessians 1:7, and already been justified Romans 4:5, 5:1, 8:1. I have even already been sanctified and glorified in the already/ not yet. Hebrews 10:10, 1 Corinthians 1:30. Romans 8:28 .All the works I do in my life have been prepared by God before time began ” for we are HIS workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” CK, you can see how Reformed believers hate Roman Catholicism which says ” you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ” when Paul says our salvation , even our works were prepared before time began. And you can see why we love Roman Catholics, caught up in a system of earning increases of their salvation , enough to point them to truth. The counter reformation was a knee jerk reaction to a fatal blow dealt by the Reformation to a church that was long apostate from biblical church. So much was piled on the cross and added to God’s law thru the guise of infalible men. The reformers dismantled the eclessial machinery that was mostly human in orgin and content, and rescued the apostles and the early church from the hair splitting academics of the medieval church. God bless. K

        2. Kevin said – The secret to Romans 2 is in reading Tim”articles on the jealousy metaphor Romans 2:13. God bless K.

          Me – yes just like Tim had to turn everything Ignatius of Antioch said about the Eucharist into a metaphor to truly “understand ” that Ignatius didn’t really mean that the Eucharist is the body of Christ.

          1. Kevin said – The secret to Romans 2 is in reading Tim”articles on the jealousy metaphor Romans 2:13. God bless K.

            Me – just read Tim’s article. As expected Paul didn’t really mean what he said. He simply meant something else.

  42. Tim said – Timothy F. Kauffman
    FEBRUARY 9, 2016 AT 10:55 PM
    I thought he was talking about loving God, loving your neighbor, obeying your parents, not coveting your neighbors goods, etc… Isn’t that what the Gentiles do in Romans 2:15, who “shew the work of the law written in their hearts”?

    Me – could you replace good works with…

    “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in loving God, your neighbor, obeying your parents, etc.. ,
    ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:6-7‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

  43. Kevin it’s really difficult to read what you write. So you are sayin you are have already been awarded eternal life because you have already persevered until the end?

    “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,”
    ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:6-7‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

    “if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
    ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:12‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

    Again I please don’t clutter your answer with what you think Rome teaches. I want to know what Kevin teaches. I’m on a phone and it’s hard to work my way through all the noise.

    Thanks

  44. ” And of course dont clutter your answers with what you think Rome teaches” I didnt. ” you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ( be given eternal life) ” that is what YOU said Rome teaches. I agree thats what Rome teaches. Paul=” justified freely as a gift by His grace” Rome= ” you must cooperate with God if you want to continue to be justified ” This is perspicuous, even a child could tell me these arent the same. Rome has to genuflect to defy Paul, and they do by adding justification on the instalment plan. But justification isnt the process of sanctification, its a one time declaration about ungodly men who believe in Christ, apart from ALL works. ” Abraham believed God, he was counted righteous. You see the verb in that verse about Abe? Abe was as righteous that day as he ever would be. Same with the tax collector who went home righteous. Justification ( righteouness ) isnt becoming inherently righteous or perfect, its God counting Christ’s life and death to our credit. Thats the only way that God can justify the wicked. The Jews in Romans 9:32 believed in grace, and they thought they could be justified by their works ( cooperation ) with grace. But Paul said they didnt make it and he prayed for their salvation. Verse 10:4 says Christ is the END of all law for righteouness to all who believe. As Tim rightly points out, if Rome was right it would read Christ is the beginning of the law for righteouness to all who believe. Thats not what Paul says. In Galatians, Paul puts All works/ effort in opposition to hearing by faith in justification. Paul isnt opposed to works, but He is in justification. Finally, there isnt a virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance of God. My heart breks for you and your family CK. As Paul says, you have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about the righteouness of God they sought to establish their own. And they didnt make. I know how Gus feels when he said he would do anything to help a Catholic. Watching them climb the ladder to salvation only to find out its on the wrong wall is hard. JP 2 ,26 years in that position and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. One cardinal said we prayed for him, now we are goingbto pray to him. Sad. K

  45. KEVIN–
    You said to CK: “My heart breks for you and your family CK. As Paul says, you have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about the righteouness of God they sought to establish their own. And they didnt make. I know how Gus feels when he said he would do anything to help a Catholic. Watching them climb the ladder to salvation only to find out its on the wrong wall is hard. JP 2 ,26 years in that position and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. One cardinal said we prayed for him, now we are goingbto pray to him. Sad.”
    AND
    GUS said to CK: ” sO the bible contradicts itself and that’s why we need il papa who speaks ex cathedra and interprets the mysteries of the faith for us poor yokels. So, shut up, go to confession, receive the eucharist, pay and die. Then someone else will pay for your requiem mass so you can get out of purgatory a couple of thousand years earlier.”

    You and Gus are heartbroken and sad because you continue to ignore the real teaching of the Catholic Church. CK and I have shown you the teaching from the source documents, and like CK said, you continue to define Catholic doctrine your own way. You bludgeon Catholics with stories on how bad the abuses were during the Reformation. NO DUH! Catholics today don’t sell indulgences, nor do they define purgatory in time spent like a prison. You guys are dwelling on the past. Catholics and Protestants aren’t killing each other anymore. And none of us can judge whether someone else is going to hell or not.
    And the only reason you think Catholics make the bible contradict itself is because your own doctrine contradicts it. It is a matter of dispute in interpretation, not a matter of heaven and hell. God reads the heart and knows whether a person loves Him or not. Even the Presbyterians are divided because of petty differences–none of them condemning. And it’s because you can’t remove the beam from your own eye.
    Remember, Satan loves vanity. It’s definitely his favorite sin.

    1. Bob, or something you obviously arent allowed to consider, the papacy in that man of perdition who puts himself up and the church as God, the antichrist of scripture. What would be a hint to the Reformed confessions , the book of Concord and believers everywhere? A mere sinner like ourselves calling himself Holy Father, Head of the church, Vicar. The name reserved for God alone, the second name reserved for Christ alone, the third name reserved for the Holy Spirit alone. Or perhaps a church who historically sells the merits of Christ. Or perhaps a church whose summit to salvation is a continual re breaking of the Lord’s body denying his finished work on the cross. Or perhaps a church with Marian ego so large that popes make her responsible for everything. Or perhaps a church that says Christ died to give you a starter kit, now you got to get there, and if you dont get there, you dont get there. But you are probably right, Tim, Gus, and I misunderstand and ignore the true teachings of Trent. Oh well when we wake up from our sola scriptura stupor we will come to our senses and see the fruit of full communion in Rome , paying for salvation and attending a sacrament 1000 times that cant get me enough grace for heaven, but can buy me a couple thousand years in sarlac. I mean who wouldnt want to leave ” you have been redeemed, justified, made complete , sealed in the Spirit, forgiven of all sins, given all things pertaining to life and Godliness, adopted, heir , an assurance of salvation for that. What good news! God bless k

  46. KEVIN–
    You said: ” I want to say thanks for the discussion. I have to leave it here. Ill let you continue with Dr Gus and Tim, who know more than I will ever know. ”

    Really? Why are you back?

    And you said: “But you are probably right, Tim, Gus, and I misunderstand and ignore the true teachings of Trent.”

    Yes. You dismiss the clear statements from Scripture, you reject the clear statements from the Catechism with the citations from the source documents, and you reject the clear statements from the source documents themselves. My guess is that you really DO know what they say, and are just quoting them out of context to make your position look correct. That is the motive I have seen time and time again. And it looks to me that you are no different. You have put blinders on yourself and it’s not the fault of the Catholic Church that you have done so. That makes you self-deceived.

    Of course I could be wrong. You all may really be doing it out of pure ignorance and are just lazy enough to not do the proper research it takes to get a comprehensive perspective by taking into account both sides of the issue. Instead, you take someone else’s word for it and then read scripture through the eyes of that agenda. Whole denominations have been founded on that premise. What makes you think you are any different?

  47. Bob said ” instead, you take someone else’s word for it and then read scripture thru the eyes of that agenda.” Oh, you mean like you with Trent. Got it. “Whole denominations have been founded on that premise” Good point, I would say whole religions too. Can you think of any? Hmmm it starts with an R and ends with Catholicism. ” What makes you think you are any different” back atcha. Thanks k

  48. KEVIN–
    You said earlier: “Bob, and whats your point? We all have to interpret the scriptures.”

    And then you said: “Bob said ‘instead, you take someone else’s word for it and then read scripture thru the eyes of that agenda.’ Oh, you mean like you with Trent. Got it. ‘Whole denominations have been founded on that premise’ Good point, I would say whole religions too. Can you think of any? Hmmm it starts with an R and ends with Catholicism. ‘ What makes you think you are any different’ back atcha. Thanks k

    Exactly my point. We are all in the same boat. It’s sinking and your rocking it. Pretty soon, after telling everyone they are going to hell, or that they are a hippocrit, or that they better repent and “see it my way” you’re going to be starting a denomination all on your own. How many churches have you hopped from one to another? That’s because you get the feeling that you haven’t been “fed” in this church so let’s try another. You have basically said so yourself. That just perpetuates the Reformation. I’ve heard the stories.
    “Well, I don’t really like what they teach here at Cityview Baptist. And they won’t repent from their teaching after all that I have said, so I’ll leave these guys and try Trinity Bible Baptist, they sound pretty good.”
    “Ooops…after a year at Trinity Bible Baptist I found out that they teach pre-millenial dispensationalism. That can’t be right. I’ve told them that they are mistaken but they just won’t listen to me. And I have shown them the Scriptures to prove it. I’ll leave them and go to GlenRose Victory Christian Church. They are non-denominational. They will be open minded and maybe there pastor and me will see eye to eye.”
    “OOOPS! After about three years, GlenRose Victory Christian Church got a new pastor and he was all over the place. I think he came from Holy Chapel of the Transfiguration Seminary at Boy’s Ranch Tennessee. Those guys are snake handlers. Y’know, I think I’d better leave these guys and find me a mainstream denomination that teaches a proven doctrine. Now let’s see, which branch of the Split P’s can I try:
    Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA)
    Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – PC (USA)
    Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
    Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC)
    Cumberland Presbyterian Church (CPC)
    Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)
    Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO)
    Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP)
    Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS)
    Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
    Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery Covenant Presbyterian Church
    Presbyterian Reformed Church
    Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States
    Korean American Presbyterian Church
    Free Presbyterian Church of North America.
    Whew! I’d better get busy!”

    And you also said: “Bob, something you obviously arent allowed to consider, the papacy in that man of perdition who puts himself up and the church as God, the antichrist of scripture.”

    Kevin, is that your infallible declaration in matters of faith and morals, or are you just acting like it is? Or are you just putting your faith in Tim’s infallible declaration. He has stated that he is 100% sure without error Catholics are idolaters and that the Papacy is the Anti-Christ.

  49. Bob, it is God that binds my conscience. Galatians 5:1 says it was for freedom Christ set me free. I go to church wherever I want to go to church. Where the word is rightly divided and the sacraments are administered correctly. I antend a bible church now and consider myself Reformed. My wife and I have in the last year attended a Reform Pres church and have considered the move. As far as if my declarations are infalible. No Im not infalible. But as I told Dave Anders when he told me Christians cant sit down with the Spirit and there bible and discern God’s truth, yes we can. You see Bob it isnt a church that is going to stand before God for me, its me. And when I read the scripture which is clear it tells me I have no need of a teacher 1 John 2: 27. Does that mean I dont submit to my teachers, no it doesnt. What it means is in the end in the Spirit by and with the word of God I discern and make determinations about truth AND error. Here is what Dave Anders cant answer, the bible mandates ME to make determinations about error. For instance, Jesus said ” if someone comes to YOU and says I am the Christ, dont believe him.” And since the antichrist comes from WITHIN the church, at the highest level, I will be making that determination for myself, and warning others. I do not think Tim is infalible, nor do I believe Tim thinks he is infalible. But what I do think is he has proven a man who knows scripture, because he has put in the time to study it. I consider this blog to be like a free seminary for me. And Im going to read a man’s articles who has put the time in on the word of God. I find myself reading Tim’s articles accompanied by scriptural references shaking my head in agreement much of the time. I was saved in John MacArthur’s church, maybe one of the greatest expository preachers of our time. Do I agree with everything he teaches, no I dont. But he knows the word. To answer your other question Bob, I am also fully convinced from scripture that Catholics are idolators and Rome is antichrist of scripture . One 17th century theologian said anyone who doesnt see it is under a strong delusion. You are free to disagree, or are you ? I am free to disagree with confessions. I think Catholics dont like that about us. And since scripture tells me that it is profitable for every good work, even the establishment of doctrine, well Im good. You see Bob, I dont sit around thinking about how many denominations there are. Like my friend Eric W likes to say , I drive down the street and I say there is God’s church and there is another one and there is more of my brothers over there. There are many visible churches, full of people that make up God’s invisible church, God’s elect. K

  50. Kevin,
    If you live within driving distance to Phoenix, and need a place to go to church and hear the same kind of uncompromising stuff that you have heard from me or Tim, let me know and I can give you a recommendation.

    Gus

    1. Gustavo P Gianello
      FEBRUARY 9, 2016 AT 9:57 PM
      sO the bible contradicts itself and that’s why we need il papa who speaks ex cathedra and interprets the mysteries of the faith for us poor yokels.

      Gus

      Me – then ironically Gus interprets the mysteries of faith for poor yokels like Kevin.

      Gustavo P Gianello
      FEBRUARY 11, 2016 AT 1:04 AM
      Kevin,
      If you live within driving distance to Phoenix, and need a place to go to church and hear the same kind of uncompromising stuff that you have heard from me or Tim, let me know and I can give you a recommendation.

      Gus

      Me – Papa Gus’s motto “do as I say, not as I do, I have the uncompromising gospel”

  51. KEVIN–
    You said: “What it means is in the end in the Spirit by and with the word of God I discern and make determinations about truth AND error.”

    Ok then, let’s see.
    Council of Trent
    Canons On Justification
    811 Can. I. If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema [cf. n. 793 ff.].

    Truth or error?

  52. Error, because we are justified only by what He did, not by anything we do, not even grace inspired works. Romans 4:16″ For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise might be GUARANTEED to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Bob, if a Roman Catholic wants to be saved by grace alone , it will have to be by faith alone. Trent Canon 30 anathematizes anyone who says there isnt debt and temporal punsihment left in this life and the one to come to burn off” Bob, this stuff should be clear to you by now. Paul = ” freely as a gift by His grace” Rome= cooperating with His grace. They arent the same thing. No Christian would ever say faith doesnt produce good works, it just those works are prepared by God, they are gifts, and they have nothing to do with our standing before God. Only what He did counts for us. He ransomed us, bought us out of slavery. And the whole church sings the amen! When He was raised, so was I. And here is a greater point, because my salvation depends on Him Romans 5:10, I have joy, peace, and assurance. I pursue my sanctification with all my heart, because wherever I fail , His righteouness covers it. Nothing I do can separate me from the love of God. K

    1. KEVIN–
      You answered: “Error, because we are justified only by what He did, not by anything we do, not even grace inspired works.”

      How in the world did you come up with error in that statement? Even your explanation matches what Trent said:
      Trent– “by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law,”
      Kevin– “by anything we do”

      Trent– “and without divine grace through Christ Jesus”!!! That means there is no justification whatsoever without Jesus Christ–period.
      Kevin–“Only what He did counts for us. He ransomed us, bought us out of slavery. And the whole church sings the amen!”

      Kevin, you have put on the anti-Catholic blinders so much that you can’t even recognize truth if it came up and bit you in the nose. Yes, I can see that you are not infallible. It’s really obvious to me now.

      You even quote Trent and don’t even know it.
      Kevin–“I discern and make determinations about truth AND error.”
      Trent–“it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, (TRUTH)but also what they ought to shun and avoid(ERROR).

  53. Bob, nice try. But no cigar. Canon 811 says Roman Catholics are justified by grace enabled works. I dont agree with that. A Christian isnt justified by any works. You didnt think I’d fall for that ? Lol k

  54. KEVIN–
    I can’t believe you said: “Canon 811 says Roman Catholics are justified by grace enabled works.”

    Tell me where in Canon 811 it says that??? You need to get some reading glasses or something.

    1. ” Tell me in 811 where it says that” would be happy to Bob. The first part of the canon eleminates works done in natural powers and works or works thru the teaching of the law, ( but watch) and without divine grace without Jesus Christ. It is simply saying the only works that justify are ( as CK has said) ” works done in God. ” Unfortunately for Catholics Paul eliminates ALL works in justification. But you know that the RC believe grace enabled works Justify. In Rome its partly grace, partly works. Maybe you will recognize this from one of your canons ” convrerted to their own justification ” Bob, converted to THEIR OWN justification? Lets be frank, and Im going to guess you know this, Catholics smuggle their character into God’s work of grace. Trent really boils down to ” worthiness of merit” justification. Rome teaches to merit the merit of Christ. CK describes this as a free gift that you cant throw away. But its really acruing increases of grace thru what you do in God. Cooperation with grace. Its partly you and partly God. But Bob how in the world can that be squared with ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace isnt grace” paul puts not only faith and works in opposition in justification, but slso grace and works. Works can only ocur in sanctification, and cant merit the acceptance of God. Thanks

      1. Kevin – it’s all grace.

        I’m still trying to understand why Paul would say God rewards us with eternal salvation if we persevere in good works if he believes ALL works are eliminated in justification.

        Can you please explain this contradiction other than the usual Paul didn’t really mean what he said?

        1. KEVIN–
          You said to CK: ” 2 Timothy 2:12 says , if we deny Him ( someone without saving faith) , if we persevere ( describing someone with saving faith).”

          When you say “saving faith”, what do you mean?

          1. Good question.

            Kevin, what do you mean by sanctification. Can you be justified and not sanctified or sanctified and not justified? Catholics believe it’s one in the same, but it sounds like you don’t.

      2. ” if its by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, or grace isnt grace”

        me – He’s saying we are saved by Faith in Jesus and not the Mosaic Law (works of the law). Very Catholic.

        Kevin – Works can only ocur in sanctification, and cant merit the acceptance of God.

        Me – Paul says.. “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,”
        ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:6-7‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

        How about this one?

        Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.
        1 Timothy 4:16 NABRE

        OH MY GOODNESS!!!! Timothy doing good works (in Christ ie. grace) can save himself and others?????!!!!!!

        Say it ain’t so!!!!

    1. Kevin – Tim asked me the same thing earlier and I answered. See above.

      What good works do YOU think he’s talking about? That is the question since you deny goods works play any role in whether or not one is saved.

  55. KEVIN–
    You said: “I discern and make determinations about truth AND error.”

    Council of Trent
    Canons on Justification
    812 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema [cf. n. 795, 809].

    Truth or error?

  56. Who is Paul talking to in Romans 2: 1-6, and what law is he adressing in verse 6? And then finally , what does Paul mean in verse 3:20 ” because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified” and 21 ” WITHOUT the law 22″ even the righteouness of God thru faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe?

  57. FEBRUARY 12, 2016 AT 7:11 AM
    Kevin – Who is Paul talking to in Romans 2: 1-6,
    and what law is he adressing in verse 6?

    Me – Jews and the law written on our hearts.

    “Did you fail to rescue those who were being dragged off to death, those tottering, those near death, because you said, “We didn’t know about it”? Surely, the Searcher of hearts knows and will repay all according to their deeds.”
    ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭24:11-12‬

    Kevin – And then finally , what does Paul mean in verse 3:20 ” because by the works of the law no flesh will be justified” and 21 ” WITHOUT the law 22″ even the righteouness of God thru faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe?

    Me – works of the law=Jewish law (Torah). The Law of Torah can’t save you. It’s through faith in Jesus (grace alone) that you can be saved.

    I think we both agree on this. The question is after we come to Christ through faith does works play a deciding factor on whether or not we are rewarded with eternal life. Romans 2:6-8 says we are you say we are not.

    1. No actually we dont agree on this ” it is thru faith in Jesus ( grace alone ) thay you can be saved. ” It is ( by grace alone) thru faith alone in Jesus alone that I AM saved. I am in a saved state, not a conditional savable state. Romans 4:16 ” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it might be in accordance with grace, so that the promise might be GUARANTEED to all the descendants ” If Roman Catholics want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. As far as Romans 2, I will echo what Tim has said, and maybe he will explain it in more detatil. The Mosaic law is in view throughout chapters 1-3. Paul is making the Jews jealous by telling them that the believing gentiles ( those who have been circumcised inwardly and have the law written on their heart) are better at obeying the law than you. Those that did not have the law actually obey it, and you to whom it has been given, dont ( these are unbelieving Jews). And it is in this context that Paul says the doers of the law will be justified ( those who have been jbfa believing gentiles ) , but he doesnt say they will be justified by doing the law. Rather in chapter 3 says no one will be justified by law. How do we know he is still talking about the Mosaic law. Because he says the knowledge of sin comes thru the law. Well the knowledge of sin doesnt come thru dietary or circumcision. When Paul speaks of the law, he is ALWAYS speaking of the whole law. Now, Dave Anders would like us to believe, although Paul is consistenly refering to the Mosaic law throughout, he shifts to a ” new law.” But he is wrong. Paul goes on to say in verse 20-22 ” without the law” justification. If Catholicism were infalibility correct, and it isnt, then Romans 10: 4 wouldnt read Christ is the end of the law for righteouness , but Christ is the beggining of the law for righteouness. Now in light of what I just told you, listen to what Calvin called the ignorant men in their funny miter hats said at Trent Canon 9 ” If anyone saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in anyway necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema ” canons of Trent. Paul ” without the law” Trent anathamatized the gospel of scripture, and thats why Luther said the pspacy will not permit its people to be saved. K

      1. Kevin I really am trying to understand your position. I’m usin my phone so it’s hard to get to your point when you throw a bunch of stuff you think Rome teaches. I’m answering your questions directly and letting you state what you believe. I don’t fill up the combox with Calvin teaches this or that or Calvin did this or that….

      2. Kevin – No actually we dont agree on this ” it is thru faith in Jesus ( grace alone ) thay you can be saved. ” It is ( by grace alone) thru faith alone in Jesus alone that I AM saved.

        Me – poorly worded on my part. I agree with this.

        Kevin – I am in a saved state, not a conditional savable state. Romans 4:16 ” For this reason it is by faith, in order that it might be in accordance with grace, so that the promise might be GUARANTEED to all the descendants

        Me – if you persevere until the end. You have not addressed the verses I pointed out that says you must persevere until the end.

        Kevin – ” If Roman Catholics want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone.

        Me – noise.

        Kevin – As far as Romans 2, I will echo what Tim has said, and maybe he will explain it in more detatil. The Mosaic law is in view throughout chapters 1-3. Paul is making the Jews jealous by telling them that the believing gentiles ( those who have been circumcised inwardly and have the law written on their heart) are better at obeying the law than you. Those that did not have the law actually obey it, and you to whom it has been given, dont ( these are unbelieving Jews). And it is in this context that Paul says the doers of the law will be justified ( those who have been jbfa believing gentiles ) , but he doesnt say they will be justified by doing the law.

        Me – I think I agree with what you are saying here. It is through grace alone and faith alone that we are justified. Again we disagree on whether or not the law written on our hearts and Christ’s Law play a role on whether or not we will be saved.

        You still have not told me what kind of good works will be rewarded with everlasting life if we persevere in doing those good works.

        Kevin – Rather in chapter 3 says no one will be justified by law. How do we know he is still talking about the Mosaic law. Because he says the knowledge of sin comes thru the law. Well the knowledge of sin doesnt come thru dietary or circumcision. When Paul speaks of the law, he is ALWAYS speaking of the whole law

        Me – no, but the knowledge of sin does come thru the moral law, which IS part of the Mosaic Law. Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law and I agree, salvation does not come from following the Mosaic Law.

        Kevin – Now, Dave Anders would like us to believe, although Paul is consistenly refering to the Mosaic law throughout, he shifts to a ” new law.” But he is wrong. Paul goes on to say in verse 20-22 ” without the law” justification. If Catholicism were infalibility correct, and it isnt, then Romans 10: 4 wouldnt read Christ is the end of the law for righteouness , but Christ is the beggining of the law for righteouness.

        Me- I’m not sure what Dave Anders says. Noise.

        Kevin – Now in light of what I just told you, listen to what Calvin called the ignorant men in their funny miter hats said at Trent Canon 9 ” If anyone saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in anyway necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema ” canons of Trent. Paul ” without the law” Trent anathamatized the gospel of scripture, and thats why Luther said the pspacy will not permit its people to be saved. K

        Me – more noise.

        Kevin, I did what you asked me to do and read Tim’s post on Romans 2 and answered your specific questions without a bunch of noise. I ask the same of you.

        I agree with you that justification comes from grace alone through faith alone in Christ. I also believe that good works plays a role on whether or not we are rewarded with eternal life. I’m pointing to Romans 2: 6-8 as an example.

        So what kind of good works do you think Paul is talking about?

        Thanks

        1. You said ” I agree with you that justification comes fom grace alone thru faith alone in Christ. ” If you stopped there you would believe the gospel of scripture. But here comes your next sentence ” I also believe that good works play a role on whether or not we are rewarded with eternal life.” Thats like saying salvation is a free gift, but you have to work really, really hard for it. An oxymoron to say the least. CK, all of salvation is a gift, we cant earn it nor do we deserve it . Here is a true story. In 2008 in the plaza of the Vatican, Benedict spoke on the aniversary of the Reformation. And he said at the coclusion of his talk: ” We can all agree with dear Martin Luther that we are justified by faith alone ( always keep on listening with false teaching) “pause ” ……. as it is formed in love.” There it is. And thats why Rome excomnicated itself from the true church. K

          1. You are right. I went one step further and said good works plays a role on whether or not we are rewarded with eternal salvation. I also gave you a verse that says that, but you did not address it.

  58. Fair enough, I appreciate if you are truly looking at the Reformed position ,though I quoted canon 9 of Trent to draw the distinction. Sometimes candidness hurts Catholics feelings but the distinction isnt a misunderstanding, but 2 different ways to heaven. Thats why Luther called it the hinge. Paul wouldnt give an ounce on works Gal. 2:5, nor will we. God bless k

  59. CK, you asked me ” so what kind of works are rewarded with eternal life ” perfect works under the mosaic law, you got any of those? ” In the day you eat you shall die” Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.” The law requires perfect, personal, perpetual obedience, a small detail the sophists missed. Make no mistake CK, Galatians 5:1-4 will explain the danger you are in if you believe what you told me. Paul has a special message for those law grace mixers, and it aint a good one. K

    1. Kevin – earlier you said ALL works are excluded. Now you are saying perfect Mosaic Law. I thought Christians no longer had to keep the Mosaic Law or do they?

      1. CK, excellent question. The historical reformed view on Romans 2: 6 is that this was the hopeful justification of those under the law without Christ. In chapter 1 he addresses the pagan, and in chapter 2 he adresses the unrepentant, unbelieving Jew. We know that by verse 5. As I told you the Mosaic law was a death sentence . Why? Because men are sinners and as I told you , the law requires perfect , personal, and perpetual obediece. James says if you break one tittle , you are guilty of all of it. Paul says the same, taking circumcission one was guilty of the whole law. Look also at Galatians 3:10 ” cursed is anyone who does not abide in all things written in the book of the law.” So, hypothetically one could be justified by perfectly keeping the law, but God offers people thru his mercy and grace justification ( which isnt provisional but final because it is based solely on His work outside of us applied to us thru faith alone ) the opportunity to be justified by faith alone in Christ alone without the law. It is important to note on those ( RC’s .) who think there is some final judgment on our works , the story of the Pharisse in chapter 18 who was hoping for a final justification by his works. He believed his works were from God, but he thought he would be justified by them. Jesus had a different opinion about that opinion. The tax collector was the only one who repented and believed and went home righteous, justified. You would be interested to know Paul cements this in Philippians 3:9, where he describes himself as blameless before the law, hebrew of hebrew, but he didnt want anything to do with it. He counted his law righteouness as DUNG, but instead wanting to be found in the righteouness of Christ by faith. He has 2 columns 1. His works 2. Only Christ’s righteouness. We know which one he chose. Thats why muxing law and Gospel is fatal in justification. So when Catholicism says Jesus is a softer Moses with an easier law, it is a fatal misreading of Jesus who fulfilled the law in our place, and the law which requires perfection to be justified. K

  60. KEVIN–
    You said: “I discern and make determinations about truth AND error.”

    Council of Trent
    Canons on Justification
    812 Can. 2. If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema [cf. n. 795, 809].

    Truth or error?

  61. Bob, error. This is talking aboutvthe grace necessary for the work of salvation in the RC. Justification does not mean make righteous, or good, or holy, or upright. It is true that in the application of redemption that God makes people holy. He begins this in regeneration and carries it on in sanctification. He will perfect it in glorification. But justification does not refer to this renewing and sanctifying grace of God. It is one of the primary errors of the Romish church that it regards justification as an infusion of grace, as renewal and sanctification by where we are made holy. The seriousness of the Romish error is that it has confused these graces and has eliminated from the gospel the great truth of the full and free justification by grace. Thats why Luther endured such a travail of soul as long as he was governed by the Romish church, and was the reason he experienced such joy and assurance when he was emancipated from the chains of Rome. K

  62. Bob, unlike the Old covenant, the gospel is told and believed, not done. You and CK are missing the discontinuity between the OT and NT . Christ is the fulfilment of the law, our substitute. Hebrews says the one who has entered his rest , has rested from his works like God. John 3:36 ” He who believes in the Son HAS eternal life. ” k

  63. CK, you were saying you wanted to understand our position better. I always suggest a must read ” A treatise on Christian Liberty” by Martin Luther. It will help greatly in understanding the major differences, as well as the trmendous confidence the freedom of the gospel brings a believer. I never really understood faith rightly until I read this. Blessings. K

  64. CK, I wanted to add one more thing to you. Romans 2:13 ” for it is not the hearers of the law who are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified. Michael Horton points out that one cannot be justified by hearing the law, but one is justified by hearing and believing the gospel. For those that want to go the road justification thru the law in any way better be pepared to do all of it, which Paul tells us no one has ever done.” But, by justifying the wicked by faith apart from the works of the law, God is able to finally realize the promise made to Abraham and heralded in the prophets, that in him and his seed all the nations will be blessed.”

    1. Kevin,

      It’s going to take a me a few days to address your comments. I’m very busy at work and I need to go back and retread some verses.

      Thanks

  65. KEVIN–
    You said: “Bob, error. This is talking about the grace necessary for the work of salvation in the RC.”

    So do you believe that the RC teaches that grace is not necessary for salvation? If that is what you take from Canon 2, then yes, you are in error. It is you who are smuggling your ideas into that canon.

    “If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema.”

    What Canon 2 tells me is that it is wrong to believe that the grace through Christ makes it easier to live justly and merit eternal life, as though it were even remotely possible one could live justly and merit eternal life by living a difficult life of hardship trying to earn it without Christ.

    I know you agree with that statement. I have been reading your posts for two years. You would say it was doubly wrong for anyone to believe that.

    1. Bob, it is you that believe the Romish doctrine that justification is an infusion of grace. But justification is heard and believed, NOT done. But you have bought the Romish error that confuses regeneration and sanctification graces with the grace of justification. Trents canons have made a sound ,boom, in your ear. So live by them. Have a good day. K

      1. Kevin how is justification heard an believed? It’s through grace alone and faith alone. We can’t do anything to earn it. That is all 812 Can 2 is saying. As you know this is what we call initial justification. The fact that you think it can’t be lost or how we are given that grace does not make that sentence wrong. Imputation or infusion is how theologians think it happens.

        I think this is why I have such a hard time figuring out what we can agree so we can move past go. You are so focused on the end and so wary of agreeing with anything taught by Rome it makes it nearly impossible to move forward. I think BOB is right. If he had reworded it a little and claimed it as his you’d agree with it. At least that’s the impression I get from reading you for the past several years. I don’t Calvin would have an issue with it.

      2. Kevin what does the reformed think sanctification does that justification doesn’t. As you know Catholics think they are pretty much interchangeable.

        Can you have sactification without justification or justification without sanctification? Or to put it another way can you have one without the other?

  66. CK, the gospel is told and believed, not done. Justification isnt an infusion of grace. It does not mean to make holy , righteous, or good. It is true that in the application of salvation God makes us holy. He begins this in regeneration and sanctification. But thats not the grace of justification. And the seriousness of the Romish error is confusing the two. It has confused these 2 distinct acts of grace. Paul doesnt separate justification from sanctification, but he distinquishes them. It is so serious, that he wrote Galatians to address it, and said in 5:1 those who go down the path of Roman Catholicism arent saved. Its a gospel issue. K

  67. CK, there was no moving forward for Paul Gal 2:5 , and there wont be any moving forward for me unless Trent repents of their false doctrines. They are leading their people to hell. But I agree with Tim, God is calling his elect to leave that communion immediately Revelations 18:4. Tim once said that a Christian in the Cathokic church is a bad Catholic. I agree. A good Catholic, no way. Thanks k

    1. Ok you win. I guess we need to go to the beginning. So can you tell me the relation between justifying and sanctification and wether or not you can have one without the other?

      Thanks

      1. Both Luther and Calvin agree for both:
        “What place, then, does good works have in the life of the believer? “To the charge that justification thus understood obviates the need for good works, Calvin’s firm reply is, like Luther’s, that although in no respect can good works become the ground of our holiness, A LIVING FAITH is never devoid of such works. Thus justification necessarily has its consequence in sanctification.”–Bernard M. G. Reardon, Religious Thought in the Reformation (London: Longman, 1981),196

  68. First of all, the Reformers never believed that justification comes apart from union with Christ. Like in adoption, there are legal aspects and relational aspects. God calls a person thru his word ( faith comes thru hearing and hearing thru the word of God). We call this effectual call. Then the Spirit regenerates that person, they then repent and believe. They are justified ( the word means declared just) by faith alone because it is the alone instrument that brings Christ our justification to the heart. Lets stop here. This is why Luther said it is a righteouness that comes from outside us. This declaration Romsns 4:5 is a one time declaration apart from any works byvfaith alone . 8:1 ” there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. 5:1. So now the believer posess Christ, for it is a person that is offered, not a philosophical derivative off that person. We posess the Spirit of Christ ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him ” Now God applies the the rest of redemption thru sanctfying us and eventually perfecting us in glorification. But CK, it is important to note that we are not justified by the the righteouness of God done in us. ( cooperating with grace ) to a final justification. ” The righteous shall LIVE by faith ” Faith, pistis, fiducia, is a continual trust in Jesus and His righteouness for our salvation. We are to never look to our obedience to be accepted before God, but to His obedience and death. Incidentallty. Scripture says Christ’s one sacrifice was a propitiation for us. The debt, and all the punishment has been satified. Yes the church fill up the sufferings of Christ, but in no way redemptive suffering. He paid it all on the cross. He said he had accomplished all the father gave him to do, and he said it is finished. The incarnation happened one and accomplished redemption Ephessians 1:7. Yes he continues in his incarnate state in his glorified body always applying hos sacrifice on our behalf. But there is nothing for us to do to to atone. Our sanctification is a pursuit of holiness in the Spirit by picking up our cross. True believers will persevere to the end. But we must remember, we will never achieve perfect inherent righteouness in this life. But where we fail, we are covered by His perfect righteouness. I hope that was clear k

  69. KEVIN–
    You said: “First of all, the Reformers never believed that justification comes apart from union with Christ.”

    Neither do Catholics.

    ” Like in adoption, there are legal aspects and relational aspects. God calls a person thru his word ( faith comes thru hearing and hearing thru the word of God). We call this effectual call. Then the Spirit regenerates that person, they then repent and believe.”

    Yes, that is what Canon 3 from Trent says:
    813 Can. 3. If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].

    “They are justified ( the word means declared just) by faith alone because it is the alone instrument that brings Christ our justification to the heart. Lets stop here. This is why Luther said it is a righteouness that comes from outside us. This declaration Romsns 4:5 is a one time declaration apart from any works byvfaith alone . 8:1 ” there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. 5:1.

    I assume that when you say “faith alone” you mean “living, saving faith alone” and not “dead or inert faith alone”. And providing that the effectual call and the Spirit regenerates that person, then yes, that is what Canon 4 and Canon 10 of Trent says:
    814 Can. 4. If anyone shall say that man’s free will moved and aroused by God does not cooperate by assenting to God who rouses and calls, whereby it disposes and prepares itself to obtain the grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, if it wishes, but that like something inanimate it does nothing at all and is merely in a passive state: let him be anathema [cf. n. 797].
    820 Can. 10. If anyone shall say that men are justified without the justice of Christ by which He merited for us, or that by that justice itself they are formally just: let him be anathema [cf. n. 798, 799].

    “So now the believer posess Christ, for it is a person that is offered, not a philosophical derivative off that person. We posess the Spirit of Christ ” for the one who joins himself to the Lord is one SPIRIT with Him ”

    Yes, exactly. And so says Canon 11 of Trent:
    821 Can. 11. If anyone shall say that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and remains in them, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema [cf. n. 799ff., 809].

    “Now God applies the the rest of redemption thru sanctfying us and eventually perfecting us in glorification… The righteous shall LIVE by faith ” Faith, pistis, fiducia, is a continual trust in Jesus and His righteouness for our salvation… Yes the church fill up the sufferings of Christ, but in no way redemptive suffering… Yes he continues in his incarnate state in his glorified body always applying his sacrifice on our behalf.

    Agreed.

    “But there is nothing for us to do to atone.”

    Here is where you get off track. We have moved away from justification and are now in sanctification. This is where we start living faithful lives. When you sin, do you not confess your sin, repent, and then try to make it right with who you sinned against? Do you not forgive so that you, too, may be forgiven?

    “Our sanctification is a pursuit of holiness in the Spirit by picking up our cross. True believers will persevere to the end.”

    Agreed.

    “But we must remember, we will never achieve perfect inherent righteouness in this life. But where we fail, we are covered by His perfect righteouness.”

    And we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. So we must act the part, being humble and not feeling smug and presumptuous.

    “I hope that was clear k”

    Crystal.

  70. ” I assume when you say faith alone you mean ….. and providing that the eefectual call and the Spirit regenerates the person” No , you are including infusion of grace. I told you that justification doesnt mean an infusion of grace. It is a forensic delcaration when we believe, so it would not include regeneration or sanctification, but you know this. The Reformers rejected Trent on justification, remember. ” But here is where you get off track” No, that is where you are off track. No redemptive suffering, no atoning one’s own sin. He already paid the bill Ephessians 1:7 ” we HAVE redemption ” There is no future justification. Im as righteous today as I will ever be. My righteousness isnt derived from His, it is His righteouness. ” So we MUST act the part” No, We must not work” Romans 4:5. The gospel is told and believed, not done. Your post again makes Trent proud of you as you smuggle your character into God’s work of grace. ” and we are called to love our neighbor ….” yes we are, but that doesnt justify us. Unfortunately Trent says it does, and thats why Roman Catholicism is a false religion. K

  71. CK, Bob, thanks for a good discussion. I think we all conducted ourselves well. From my perspective Roman Catholicism is a confusion of Abraham and Moses, Sarah and Haggar, freedom and bondage, Sinai and Zion, law with gospel. K

    1. Kevin – I’m confused about your view on justification and sanctification.

      Can you be sanctified and not justified? Do these graces come more or less at he same time?

      I’ve asked several times, I’m not sure if you are ignoring me or don’t know the answer and need to do some research .

      1. ” Im confused about your view on justification and sanctification” dont feel bad, so is your church. They see justification as an infusion of grace, inner moral change. Walt posted the WCF position comparing the Romish position on justification and the biblical one. I cant say it any better than the confession. Its clear. I dont really believe you or Bob dont understand the difference, you just want us to say justification and sanctification cant be distinquished, but Paul makes a stunning distinction. ” Can you be sanctified and not justified” Justification always undergirds sanctification. There, I answered your question. They are different graces. One is a declaration about a wicked man apart from works who has placed his trust in Jesus. The gospel is told and believed, not done. The other grace sanctification is God’s work in us to make us holy, God sanctifying us in truth. All of salvation is a work of God. Listen to Romans 5:10 ” much more having now been reconciled to God, we shall be saved by His life. Whose life will save us CK? K

  72. Hi Tim, I must tell you that I have really set out in the last couple weeks to really understand Romans 2. And I fully cooncur with the jealousy metaphor. But, it hit me that Paul is warning and reminding unrepentant unbelieving Jews who are accountable to the Mosaic law that the failure to do it wont result well for them. And then he warns them that sinning with or without the law will be judged by the law. Then he switches in verse 14 to the gospel, which I hadnt noticed before. He describes those gentiles saved by the gospel as ” who do instinctively the things of the law” and ” in that they show the work of the law written on their hearts” and ” the conscience bearing witness” all a work of the Spirit. How do we know this? In a whole chapter when, as you say, he always has the Mosaic law in view and is lecturing them on its requirements, in 14 he describes saved gentiles and in verse 16 confirms this saying ” according to my gospel”. Then in verse 17 he goes back to the law ” if you are a jew and rely on the law” ” you boast in the law” you better practice the law. If you transgress the law…… He is warning them about what the law requires of them. All this to set them up in chapter 3 to bust their chops ” we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are under sin” oh, oh , all transgressors of the law, all shut up under sin . Where is the good news? Verse 21, without the law, thank you Jesus. The good news ” just and justifier of those who have faith in Jesus” ” freely be his grace” Halelughah! Yes, Tim, indeed did Jason Stellman, Dave Anders, and every Roman Catholic miss the point of Romans 2, fatally believing it was teaching justification by grace inspired law, not knowing that Paul was telking them what the law requires of them and compares them with the gentiles who were jbfa and obey the law. K

  73. JUSTIFICATION

    In establishing the official position of Rome, I will be citing _Catechism Of The Catholic Church_ (CCC), 1995 which has an introductory essay by John Paul II (thus giving this treatment of the subjects contained therein his own imprimatur). In establishing the official position of Westminster, I will confine my citations to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)

    1. The Nature of Justification

    a. According to Rome justification is a change in the moral nature of a sinner. According to Rome justification is not a judicial act of God whereby He objectively imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner and declares him to be righteous on the ground of Christ’s perfect righteousness, but rather a moral transformation by God whereby He subjectively cleanses the heart of sin and corruption and renews man within by giving to man the righteousness of God. This confusion blurs the biblical distinction between justification (an objective judicial act) and sanctification (a subjective moral transformation), thus removing the judicial nature of justification. Just as our sin was imputed to Christ, so His righteousness is imputed (not infused) to the believing sinner.

    Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (CCC, p. 536, #1989).

    With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC, p. 536, #1991).

    It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy (CCC, p. 536, #1992).

    Justification entails the sanctification of his whole being (CCC, p. 537, #1995).

    Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).

    b. According to Westminster justification is not a subjective moral transformation, but rather an objective judicial act whereby God imputes to the believing sinner the perfect righteousness of Christ and declares him to be righteous. Westminster correctly distinguishes justification and sanctification.

    Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for
    Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).

    Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).

    1. Walt, I have come to the conclusion that if CK and BoB aknowledge the distinction put forth in the WCF between the false gospel of Rome and what scripture teaches on justification , then they would have to come to grips with the consequences of believing what they do. K

  74. 2. The Ground of Justification

    a. According to Rome, in justification “the righteousness of God” in a generic sense is bestowed, rather than “the righteousness of Christ” in a specific sense imputed. This hides the truth that Christ acted as our Mediator in fulfilling all righteousness for us, and that it is specifically His righteousness as our divine-human surety that is the ground of our justification.

    The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (CCC, p. 535, #1987).

    Move by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high (CCC, p. 536, #1989).

    Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love (CCC, p. 536, #1991).

    The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God (CCC, p. 544, #2017).

    It [i.e. justification–GLP] conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us (CCC, p. 544, #2020).

    b. According to Westminster, the only ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ (i.e. His active obedience in fulfilling the law of God and His passive obedience in satisfying the infinite justice of God upon the cross).

    Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for
    Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (WCF 11:1).

    Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners (WCF 11:3).

  75. 3. The Means of Justification

    a. According to Rome, faith plus Baptism (and other works associated with sanctification since justification involves sanctification as well).

    The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (CCC, p. 535, #1987).

    Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith (CCC, p. 536, #1992).

    Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man (CCC, p. 544, #2019).

    It [i.e. justification–GLP] is granted to us through Baptism (CCC, p. 544, #2019).

    b. According to Westminster, there is only one instrumental means of justification: faith alone. That is not to say that one who is justified will not exercise good works. It is only to say that faith in Christ alone justifies before God, but saving faith will always be evidenced by the natural fruit of obedience to God’s will.

    Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (WCF 11:2).

    4. The Nature of Saving Faith

    a. According to Rome, saving faith consists of mere assent to the truthfulness of that which is revealed by God i.e. is agreeing with God that what is revealed is true.

    Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent (CCC, p. 537, #1993).

    In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace” (CCC, p. 48, #155).

    B. According to Westminster, saving faith includes both knowledge and assent, but it necessarily includes appropriating, receiving, and resting in the promises of salvation as one’s own.

    By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace (WCF 14:2).

  76. 4. The Salvation of Non-Christians

    a. According to Rome, non-Christians may achieve eternal salvation.

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience–those too may achieve eternal salvation (CCC, p. 244,, #847).

    b. According to Westminster, there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ.

    Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God (WCF 10:4).

    1. And like I said before, whether you believe in infused faith or imputed faith, in the end, the one who does the will of the Father is saved.

      1. And like I said before, whether you believe in infused justification or imputed justification, in the end, the one who does the will of the Father is saved.

      2. Bob, we dont believe in imputed faith. Faith isnt imputed. Christ’ righteouness is imputed, by faith. Faith is an instrument that trusts in and rests in His doing, and abandoning all trust in our doing. Please listen to the video Walt provided today. Its 6 minutes long and very good. K

  77. Kevin–
    ” I assume when you say faith alone you mean ….. and providing that the eefectual call and the Spirit regenerates the person” No , you are including infusion of grace. I told you that justification doesnt mean an infusion of grace. It is a forensic delcaration when we believe, so it would not include regeneration or sanctification, but you know this.

    Hey, those were your words you were using while explaining justification by faith. So, I will ask you again, what do you mean by “saving faith”?
    Is it just intellectual assent?

    “The Reformers rejected Trent on justification, remember.”

    No. They only disagreed with selected parts of it.

    ” But here is where you get off track” No, that is where you are off track. No redemptive suffering, no atoning one’s own sin. He already paid the bill Ephessians 1:7 ” we HAVE redemption ” There is no future justification. Im as righteous today as I will ever be. My righteousness isnt derived from His, it is His righteouness. ” So we MUST act the part” No, We must not work” Romans 4:5. The gospel is told and believed, not done.”

    Whoa Whoa Whoa, Kevin! You shifted the conversation from justification to sanctification. Now your shifting it back to justification. You’re swinging from tree to tree again, Tarzan.

    How do you expect the just to LIVE by faith? Atonement is not just between you and God. It is between you and your brother. We are taught to pray (even after our justification) “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
    And you, yourself demanded an apology and repentance from Walt, or you would not fellowship with him anymore. Kevin, do I detect that you believe this supplication is not needed? Paul teaches otherwise.

    “Your post again makes Trent proud of you as you smuggle your character into God’s work of grace.”

    That’s BS and you know it. I have shown you Catholic doctrine, and I hold you responsible for knowing it.

    ” and we are called to love our neighbor ….” yes we are, but that doesnt justify us.”

    Agreed only in that we are talking about sanctification and not initial justification.

    “Unfortunately Trent says it does, and thats why Roman Catholicism is a false religion.”

    Trent, like Paul, does not separate sanctification from justification. Sanctification is the strengthening of initial justification. That’s why Roman Catholicism is not a false religion, but one that, because or your Calvinism, you don’t agree with. You have falsely accused them of being false.

    1. ” Atonement isnt just between you and God, its between you and your brother” Wow! You are lost. . Atonement is something only Christ DID. It isnt between you and God and it isnt between you and your brother, it was between God and His Son. K

      1. Kevin so if you sin against your brother you don’t have to atone for your behavior? Reparation for the injury you caused? Doesn’t sound very Christian.

  78. CK said ” so if you sin against your brother you dont have to atone for your behavior? ” Is this your defenition of ” the free gift of eternal life” No, I dont atone for my sins, nor do I make reparations for them. I simply confess them to God, and when necessary to my brother if I have wronged him. But in no way is this me atoning for my sins. On the cross Jesus FULLY atoned for every sin everyone who would ever believe commited. God treats His Son as if He lived my life, and treats me as if I lived His. The is the glorious gospel and doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Its like if there were a book of every sin I ever commiteed with my name on the cover page , and there were a book of Christ’s perfect life with His righteouness on the cover page. God switches the cover pages. Christ’s atonement was perfect, final. Hebrews says after obtaining eternal redemption He sat down at the right hand of God. My salvation was finished in God’s eyes. In Catholicism the work of satisfaction accomplished by Christ does not relieve the faithful of the necessity of making satisfaction for sins they have commited. The temporal punishment of post baptismal sins the faithful must make satisfaction if not in this life then the life or in Sarlac. In opposition to every such notion of human satisfaction Protestants rightly contend that the satisfaction of Christ is the only for sin, and so perfect and final that it leaves no penal liability fo any sin of the believer. It is true in this life we are chastised for our sins, and such chastisement is corrective and sanctifying, ” it leaves the peacebul fruit of righteouness to them it is excerxised. Its painful. But to approximate chastisement to satisfaction for sin is to intrude on Christ’s perfect work and nature of Christ’s full and perfect satisfaction. K

    1. Kevin – No, I dont atone for my sins, nor do I make reparations for them. I simply confess them to God, and when necessary to my brother if I have wronged him. But in no way is this me atoning for my sins.

      Me – When would it be necessary and if you have been forgiven for all your future sins why would it even be necessary?

      So if you ruin a brother’s reputation all you need to do is say I’m sorry, but have no obligation to publicly set the record straight so he can get his good reputation back?

      So the tax collector who took more than he should could of just said “I’m sorry and repent” and kept the money?

      This is the problem with Calvinism, it turns Christ’s teachings on it’s head.

  79. “Free will” is represented by “Arminianism teaches” below.

    Arminianism teaches: ‘… and as many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.’ (Acts 13:48)

    Arminianism teaches: “For many are called, but few choose.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘FOR MANY ARE CALLED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.’ (Matt. 22:14)

    Arminianism teaches: “Make your decision for Christ.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.’ (Matt. 11:27)

    Arminianism teaches: “I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John 15:16). Also: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.’ (Paul’s testimony in Galatians 1:15,16)

    Arminianism teaches: “God can’t save you unless you let him, it is your choice.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy…Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ (Romans 9:16, 18).

    Arminianism teaches: “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth:) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated.’ (Rom. 9:11-13).

    Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
    THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand…'(Mark 4:11,12).

    1. KEVIN and WALT–
      Yeah, I can play Bible Bingo too. Watch this:

      You said : “Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
      THE BIBLE TEACHES: ‘And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand…'(Mark 4:11,12).”

      Yes, Arminianism teaches: “God wants everyone to be saved.”
      because
      THE BIBLE TEACHES “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1Ti 2:1ff)

      Calvinism teaches: Faith is an instrument that trusts in and rests in His doing, and abandoning all trust in our doing.
      THE BIBLE TEACHES “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat 7:21)

      That’s Jesus’ teaching. Infused or imputed, it’s the one who does the will of the Father who is saved.

      1. BOB,

        Your verses mean nothing because the author didn’t mean what he plainly wrote. They simply meant something else. 😜

        When Paul says if we persevere in good works we will be rewarded with eternal life, Kevin and the gang say no and proceed to talk about Rome, Paul trying to make Jews jealous, run to sanctification, say he didn’t mean it, etc… In the end they can’t reconcile the specific verse with their belief.

        Just like they can’t reconcile the verses you posted above other than to wish it away.

        1. CK said ” Im trying to understand the difference between us” The best way to explain it is the adoption of a child. If you adopted a child you wouldnt say you him that he must cooperate with you his whole life to be accepted into your family. No, when you adopt him he gets declared adopted. The legal papers are signed at the beginning of the relationship. He will never stop being your child. Every time he wrongs you, you chastise him, but he is your child for life. You make him a better person thru your words of truth. He, however will never be perfect, but he doesnt ever stop being your child. But he doesnt have to be. Because your birth son payed the full bill for every time he would ever offend you. Its the same with justification . Romans 4:25 ” He was delivered over for our sins and raised for our justification. ” There are no more penal consequences for believers. Our justification was final at the cross and the resurection. You wouldnt say the legal papers were the same as the life relationship you have with him. The cant be separated, but they are different graces. Justification doesnt mean infused grace. It means declared righteous. Its final. When the Jews, who deserved the same thing as the Egyptians deserved, were pardoned, God passed over them, they knew nothing of infused grace. K

          1. Kevin, again you wrote a whole bunch of stuff that reinforces what I thought about your view on justification in the life of a Christian.

            But you still address the following comment…

            “I thought we all were on the same page that when we first come to Christ we are justified by grace alone through faith alone not by anything we do.
            Full stop. ”

            Do you like me, believe this?

    2. Walt, where did you get this comparison with Arminian theolgy. It’ s excellent. Do you consider Arminians brothers and sisters in Christ? Also I hate phrases like ” make Jesus your savior” ” accept Jesus in your heart” ” I accepted Jesus” , or I re deicated my life” etc. . Salvation is a monergistic work of God, all of it. I know many non reformed who say those things out of ignorance. Also, the verse ” to as many as receive Him, He has given the right to be called children of God” is why some use the phrase I accepted Jesus. Of course we know the receiving Hisvis a work of the regenerating work of the Spirit. I hope you will respond. Hope you are well Walt, blessing K.

      1. KEVIN–
        You said: “I have come to the conclusion that if CK and BoB aknowledge the distinction put forth in the WCF between the false gospel of Rome and what scripture teaches on justification , then they would have to come to grips with the consequences of believing what they do.”

        Nice little cheap shot there, Kevin.

        The consequences of believing what we do is eternal life, unlike the false gospel of the presumptuous Calvinists who think they are the only ones going to heaven.

  80. I think the reason Kevin doesn’t want to break his beliefs down too much is because he knows what he’ll end up with when he builds it back up again won’t be Calvanism.

      1. What it means is you refuse to break thinks down to a point we can agree on and build our discussions from there. I’m not trying to convert you but trying to understand some of the differences between us.

        I thought we all were on the same page that when we first come to Christ we are justified by grace alone through faith alone not by anything we do.
        Full stop.

        Forget about Rome for now. Just focus on that statement. Not who does or does not get this grace or how. This is what I believe. Can we use this as a starting point? If not tell where you disagree.

        I tried to tackle Romans with you and even read Tims article. I noticed that I don’t understand your view on sactification and asked some question about it. I don’t think I can grasp what you are explaining because of this. That’s why I think it would be more fruitful to address what BOB brought up on what we call initial justification, address sanctification and move from there.

  81. Bob, ” the consequence of believing what we do is eternal life” , ” no one will be justified by observing the law. ” unlike the false gospel of presumptuous Calvinists who are the holy ones going to heaven.” We arent perfect, just forgiven and righteous in Him. He is our righteouness. Jerimiah 23 ” The Lord is our righteouness ” Also, it isnt presumptuous to believe 1 John 5:13 ” These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life” Bob, because we trust in His doing alone and never in our doing, we have assurance of salvation. And may I suggest if you and CK are bitter toward asurance or election or God’s soveriegnty, then you may want to reconsider what you believe. ” “AND AS MANY AS WE’RE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED ” Bob, in light of the verse how could anyone get to heaven ” cooperating with grace” Blessings always. K

  82. Kevin said – And may I suggest if you and CK are bitter toward asurance or election or God’s soveriegnty, then you may want to reconsider what you believe.

    me – I’m not bitter about none of those things. I acknowledge them. I will be rewarded with eternal salvation if I persevere until the end. That’s when I will be judged. I don’t get to judge myself.

    If you know you are saved then I guess you have already been judged. How do you know you are elect? It sounds like you’ve convinced yourself of this.

    Paul at a time wasn’t sure if he was saved, yet you have no doubt. Esau had blessings also. How do you know you know you aren’t in the same boat as Esau? God makes His promises, but you assume those promises were made to you as an Elect. How do you know you are elect, short of an experience like Pauls?

    Sounds like you are claiming to be Elect and demanding from God the reward that comes with it.

  83. KEVIN–
    I said: “unlike the false gospel of the presumptuous Calvinists who think they are the only ones going to heaven.”
    Which you do. You seem to think the only way to read the bible is the Calvinist way. Thus you are presumptuous. All it does is show that you are a very devout Calvinist.

    Me, on the other hand, take into account what Paul said:
    1Co 4:3 ff “But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
    Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.”

    Without being able to read human the heart, Kevin, do you really want to make that presumption? “For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”–Luke 6:38
    But, like a good Calvinist, you may say, “My standard is the Scriptures, and I don’t mind at all being judged by them.”

    Right. Even Paul was careful enough NOT to use that excuse.

    Or you may say, “Scripture says you shall know them by their fruits.”
    But Scripture also says “For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.”

    As much as you hate the thought, we are of the same body, just different parts.

  84. CK, if you switch ” wnen we first come” with ” we are finally justified” by grace alone thru faith alone thru Christ alone, then you got a deal. Can we agree with that switch? This will take us cooperating with each other. Lol blessings. K

    1. Ok. We can start there.

      “So you say we are FINALLY justified by grace alone thru faith alone thru Christ alone.”

      That implies that there are other ways to be justified, just not finally. Is this correct?

      1. CK, dont you think your statement is disengenuis. You know I mean justification is finished when you believe. you say ” that implies there are other ways to be justified, just not finally. ” It seems to me when you make a statement like this it says the following to me. 1. After all the time you have been here you dont know that we believe there is only one way to be justified, hard to believe . 2. You want me to ” forget about Rome” but you in this statement want to go out of your way to defend Rome and smuggle your chracter into God’s work of grace. 3. no person who truly understands their condition before God ( the heart of a man is wicked and continually sinful.) would desire another way to be justified than that of umerited favor. Also, do you not understand what Tim was trying to tell you, when he asked you, what works are rewarded with eternal life. He was tring to pull it out of you. The works of the Mosaic law are rewarded with eternal life. But as Paul says in chapter 3, no man will be justified by doing the law. Why? Ot requires perfect, personal perpetual obedience. Verse 6 isnt talking about the gospel. How do we know. Because in the next chapter he says without the law, freely by his grace, and in 4:16 he says it is guaranteed by faith, and in 6:23 he says eternal life is a free gift. So how could eternal life be a free gift, but a reward to works. It cant. Thats why Paul says it is no longer by works, not of yourselves. No works. Grace enabled or otherwise. Paul in chapter 2 is talking about the requirements of the law to the unbelieving jews, and he compares them to the gentiles who are better at doing them. Why? They are true justified believers, justified in the gospel, which is told and believed, not done. If you miss what the law requires, and you miss what Paul is teaching those who are trying to add their works to grace, then you are in serious peril. Trent had its oppurtunity to repent, and should have. But if they continue to tell their people that you are sanctified before you are justified, they will be in contempt of the gospel. K

        1. I’m playing with the cards you are dealing me. You keep being coy.

          The question is: when we first come to Christ are we justified by grace alone thru faith alone thru Christ alone?

          It’s straight forward question and your inability to answer yes or no is very strange. All Christains had to go through this initial step. Your refusal to admit this shows how disingenuous you are.

  85. Bob, what does this verse mean to you? 1 John 5:13 ” I have written these things to you who believe, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life? His congregation wasnt dead yet, but he said they could know. One mans presumption is another man’s security. I tested myself to see if I’m in the faith, I passed. Therefore I will rejoice as Paul instructs me and I will never doubt my salvation, because its He made me a promise. God dont go back on his promise. Thats why Peter calls it an inheritance that cant go away. Lets see I’ll go with John and Peter. K

    1. KEVIN–
      You said: “Bob, what does this verse mean to you? 1 John 5:13 ” I have written these things to you who believe, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life? His congregation wasnt dead yet, but he said they could know.”

      Yes we can and we will, if we persevere.

      Kevin, what does this verse mean to you? 1Co 4:3 ff “But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.
      Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.” ???

      Your Calvinism makes those verses at odds with each other.

      1. Bob, no, 1 John 5:13 doesnt say we will know, it says we can know now. Romans8:1 says we arent condemed as of when we believe. 5:8-10 says we have been reconciled and will be saved by his life. We arent in a savable state, but a saved state. Not true if you believe Catholic doctrine. 2 Corinthians 4:3 presents no problem to the believer who has assurance. Paul says we can anticipate the praise that will come from God. My hope is to hear good and faithful servant. I do not judge myself, I judge myself to be in the faith and therefore passed out of judgment John 5:24. God is the judge. Hell is being in the presence of God, heaven is being in the presence of God with a mediator. My security comes from being in Christ. Although God is the final judge, I can have full asurance right now I will pass thru that judgment and hear praise from my Savior. I have peace because Im cloked in His righteouness. In Zechariah, Joshua was being prosecuted by Satan accusing him. Joshua was standing before the angel of the Lord clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said remove his filthy garments. And to him he said ” I have your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments. And I said let them out a clean turbin on him and clothe him with white garments. Here Joshua had done nothing, and yet God came to him and put clean clothes on him. Same with Adam and Eve when they were naked, having sinned.. God kills an animal and clothes them immediately, without them doing anything. That is the gospel. I laugh when I hear Roman Catholics speak of full communion, when it is we who have the deepest understanding and communion. Colossians 2 says we are complete in Christ, lacking in nothing. In the 5 years I have done apologetics with Catholics, they never discuss these verses, only those about obedience, turning them into justification. Sad to miss the gospel of scripture, very sad. K

  86. Kevin said – I tested myself to see if I’m in the faith, I passed.

    Me – this is exactly what I’m was talking about. YOU tested yourself, YOU passed yourself, and now YOU are asking God your reward.

    This kind of presumption is a false security and a sin.

    1. CK, you said to me ” you mean you have already been judged” tell me what John 5:24 means please ? Then you said ” you passed the test.” Why would Paul tell me to give myself a test, if I couldnt determine the result? Have you ever taken a test and just guessed if you passed, and not known the result. Your assertion is silly. You said ” this kind of presumption is false security and sin. ” False security is an oxymoron. The security God offers in the scripture is called security. It means sleep well, be happy dont worry. My security doesnt come from my obedience, it comes from trusting His obedience. He made me the promise. He told me in Ephessians 1:7 ” you HAVE redemption ” CK, does that say have or will have? It says have. It isnt presumptuous to have the full assurance scripture offers. The Reformers returned this back to believers. Rome scared them into buying Christ’ s merits thru selling masses and indulgences. And cleverly toom the selking into sarlac for grandma and aunt Sally. And finally ” how do you know you are elect? ” by the witness of the Spirit by and with the word of God. K blessings

  87. KEVIN–
    You said: “Justification doesnt mean infused grace. It means declared righteous. Its final.”

    Right. So James 2:26 should read:
    “You see that one is “declared righteous” by works and not by faith alone.”

    Yes, that matches up nicely with:
    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.”
    And, yes, that is final.

    BTW, Kevin, that word for “justified” is δικαιόω, the same word that Paul uses in Romans.

    1. EXCUSE ME!
      That should read James 2:24.
      James2:26 reads “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.”

      By the way, Kevin, Mr.Straight Answer Man.
      What do you mean by “saving faith”?

      1. Does it include “yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come”?

  88. KEVIN–
    “You want me to ” forget about Rome” but you in this statement want to go out of your way to defend Rome and smuggle your chracter into God’s work of grace.”

    Is that like the same way you go out of your way to defend smuggling the word “alone” into Paul’s epistles?

  89. KEVIN–
    “You want me to ” forget about Rome” but you in this statement want to go out of your way to defend Rome and smuggle your chracter into God’s work of grace.”

    Me – so because you are afraid of what I might do, you are not willing to deny or confirm that we come to Christ by grace alone, thru faith alone, thru Christ alone.

    Sound a lot like you won’t commit to truth because you are afraid of where it might lead.

    If this is how you tested yourself then I’d be worried if I were you

  90. KEVIN–
    You said: “My hope is to hear good and faithful servant.”

    I notice you use the word “hope”. Christians use that word (ἐλπίς) as “joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation”. So you are expecting to hear the praise from God of “good and faithful servant”–expecting the reward.

    “I do not judge myself, I judge myself to be in the faith and therefore passed out of judgment John 5:24. God is the judge.”

    Which is it, you do not judge your self, you judge yourself, or is God the judge?

    “My security comes from being in Christ. Although God is the final judge, I can have full asurance right now I will pass thru that judgment and hear praise from my Savior.”

    Merit = reward. You security comes from being in Christ, who merited your salvation on the Cross. So Christ’s merit has been imputed to you, expecting from God the reward.
    Sounds like you don’t have a problem with merit.

    Kevin, you closet Catholic, you. Who would have guessed? 😉

    1. Bob, Catholics merit the merit of Christ, we believe Christ’s merits are applued thru faith alone. Of God gave grace as a reward to an action or ability it wouldnt be a gift. Salvation is a free gift. You dont deserve it and you cant earn increases of it. I think we’ve been thru this rodeo a few times. Have a good day. K

      1. I know. And you refuse to learn that Catholics do not teach that Catholics merit the merit of Christ. You have been shown and I hold you responsible for your misrepresentation.
        🙂 Have a nice day.

  91. CK ” you are not willing to deny or confirm that we come to Christ by grace alone, thru faith alone, thru Christ alone.” because that is not what Paul says. He says we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone , not of works and not of ourselves. It includes all of salvation. Its all a monergistic work of GOD . Scripture doesnt teach intial justification and further insatlments based on OUR cooperation. It teaches all of salvation is by grace alone thru faith alone in Christ alone. Our effort plays no role in our salvation. . Our works only justify our faith, not us before God. And, do you know how I know I have the truth, because it has set me free. Read Liberty of the will by Martin Luther. Incidentally, I dont worry about my salvation, thats something your church teaches. Galatians 5:1 says it was for freedom Christ has set me free. It gave me shivers when Tim said he left Catholicism and went to Calvary church, and one day he realized Christ had taken his place and forgiven him ALL his sins. And if my memory serves me correctly he said he went up to members of his church to tell them, and he realized it was something they knew. I can only thank the Lord he saved me in Protestant church and I rejoice for Tim, Walt, Gus, Eric W, Maria, 3 of my friends lately who God has removed from that synagog and brought to freedom. K

    1. Kevin said – CK, I have no idea what your talking about scoring points. What do you mean I removed Christ from justification?

      Me – I’m going to try one more time. I asked if you agreed with this statement….”we come to Christ by grace alone, thru faith alone, thru Christ alone.”

      You said no and gave this answer – “because that is not what Paul says. He says we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone , not of works and not of ourselves. It includes all of salvation.”

      As you can see you removed Christ alone. I was being cheeky.

      So one more time, do you believe one comes to Christ by grace through faith, not of works and not of ourselves? The fact that I believe one can lose their salvation AFTER they come to Christ does not change HOW one comes to Christ.

      I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins. The fact that I believe one has to confess to a priest for the forgiveness of mortal sins does not mean that Jesus is not the Son of God. Though it would seem that you would not agree with me that Jesus is the Son of God because of this.

      I know you are not obtuse, so please quit pretending you are.

  92. Kevin said to CK ” you are not willing to deny or confirm that we come to Christ by grace alone, thru faith alone, thru Christ alone.” because that is not what Paul says. He says we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone.

    No he didn’t. He said we are saved by grace through faith. You are the one who smuggled in the word “alone”.

  93. Kevin you are so consumed with not agreeing with me you removed Christ from justification. I even gave you the word alone even though Paul doesn’t say this.

    I give up trying to have an honest dialogue. I guess I will just go back to just quoting bible verses that contradict what you say. I give up in trying to understand Calvinism. It’s too focused on winning points than understanding.

    1. CK, I have no idea what your talking about scoring points. What do you mean I removed Christ from justification? He is ” just and justifier” of those who have faith in Jesus. CK, it isnt trying to score points to point out you said to me ” so there are other ways of being justified” I have never believed you really understand what the word justification means. The word is daikaiousinae. It means to count righteous, or consider as . . Jerome got it wrong because he only knew latin believing it meant to make righteous , and was weak in greek and hebrew. So was Augustine. So the word righteouness and justification were the same word in the language. They are interchangeable. For instance, in Romans 5:1 it says we have been justified by faith. In Romans 8 : 1 it says we arent condemned. These are statements about our status before God. They arent statements doing anything. Again how do you respond to the the point that justification isnt an infusion of grace like the RC teaches? It is a counting, a declaring. If you stand before a judge tomorrow because you committed a crime and were guilty, but he declared you righteous, not gulity, because someone else in the courtroom had paid for your crime, would you say you would have to be aquitted again after the judge sees how you live your life. No, you are not guilty, justified, and now you go live the life the judge told you to live. Justification is a one time declaration of not guilty. It lasts forvever. There were no conditions because someone else took your place. Thats why the gospel sets men free. All the warning passages you and Bob site arent perscriptive but desciptive of saving faith. Can you understand this. K

      1. Kevin said – CK, I have no idea what your talking about scoring points. What do you mean I removed Christ from justification?

        Me – I’m going to try one more time. I asked if you agreed with this statement….”we come to Christ by grace alone, thru faith alone, thru Christ alone.”

        You said no and gave this answer – “because that is not what Paul says. He says we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone , not of works and not of ourselves. It includes all of salvation.”

        As you can see you removed Christ alone. I was being cheeky.

        So one more time, do you believe one comes to Christ by grace through faith, not of works and not of ourselves? The fact that I believe one can lose their salvation AFTER they come to Christ does not change HOW one comes to Christ.

        I also believe that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins. The fact that I believe one has to confess to a priest for the forgiveness of mortal sins does not mean that Jesus is not the Son of God. Though it would seem that you would not agree with me that Jesus is the Son of God because of this.

        I know you are not obtuse, so please quit pretending you are.

  94. CK, Lets approach it this way and I think I can answer your question. The Roman Catholic church says you dont merit your initiation into grace, but you do your continuance in it. Do you agree with this? Yes or no. Thx

  95. Kevin said: “Our sanctification is a pursuit of holiness in the Spirit by picking up our cross”

    Sorry Kevin, believers already picked up their cross. Picking up their cross refers to nonbelievers. Jesus already provided for my sanctification too. Let me guess, your probably going to get into the fear & trembling bait & switch. Kevin loves to sucker misinformed along the way always knowing the real gospel. He just doesn’t want to reveal it and frustrate along the way to see how much you know.

    1. Brad,

      If “Picking up their cross refers to nonbelievers,” how do you understand Luke 9:23 which says, “And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me”?

      Do unbelievers do that?

      Thanks,

      Tim

  96. Sorry I meant to say the unjustified not unbelievers. Matthew 16:24 “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me”. The disciples were under the law when Jesus said “pick up the cross and follow me”. They were not saved yet. They have yet to become a new creation. Jesus is literally saying to his disciples that they must come to a place to have a new identity so pick up your cross and follow me to get there. He has yet to tell them He must die. The finished work of Jesus’s spilled blood, death & resurrection will pave the way for the following new identity: Galatians 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

    Notice Paul never said pick up the cross. . The motives are different. One is before Jesus has been glorified and the other is the risen glorified God. We the redeemed are already in Christ. His spirit abides in us and we in Him. This is the place Jesus wanted His disciples to follow Him to. We the redeemed are already there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Me