If it's True That Justification by Faith ...

[Josheb]

No, I haven't read Gentry's book, but thanks for the non-answer!

That is not a response that inclines me to provide one. Try again.

 

[prism]

That is not a response that inclines me to provide one. Try again.

Smoke is thick in here,, I'm still waiting for a few alleged facts from your post #75

 

[brightfame52]

The free gift is of many offences unto justification !

Rom 5:16

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Justification here is stated as a Free Gift in light of our many offences, and it comes through the Person and work of Jesus Christ or His Blood for His Church, His Sheep.

For them, He shed His Blood to satisfy the sentence of the Law against them, The Law which they had broken, its punishment was Justly executed upon Him, as the Head of the Church, not for all men without exception ! This is being Justified by His Blood Rom 5:9

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The word for Justify here means acquitted , the greek word dikaioó:

I make righteous, defend the cause of, plead for the righteousness (innocence) of, acquit, justify; hence: I regard as righteous.

That word acquit means:

to relieve from a charge of fault or crime; declare not guilty:

Once the Lord Jesus Christ tasted death for all whom He died as Per Heb 2:9, it is stated this Heb 1:3

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

That word purged is the word katharismos and it denotes among other things :

a cleansing from the guilt of sins

Thats an acquittal from them, which is Justification !

When Christ died for the sins of the Church, all for whom He died, by that alone, they were actually Justified Rom 5:18

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Yes, the Free Gift here is that which is also referred to in Rom 5:16

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Its Justification, or Acquittal from the guilt of sins they have committed. This is a Free Gift by Imputation to their Account because of Christ's Blood which cleansed them ! Heb 1:3 !

Back to Rom 5:18, the sentence of condemnation and death actually came upon the elect in Adam, their Federal and Natural Head, while they were yet not born, but when Adam sinned, they inherited being sinners and the corresponding nature and death !

But when Christ, the Second Adam on their behalf fulfilled the Law of God, and cleansed them from their sins by His Blood, they were actually Justified thereby, simply because the sentence of God was actually inflicted upon Him on their stead, hence all their sins were put away, as in Daniel its written Dan 9:24

24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

As David knew Ps 103 :12

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.= Justification !

By His Obedience for them, the law was Satisfied in FULL, and to confirm it, He was raised for their Justification or because of it Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Which confirms the Truth that they were Justified by His Blood alone Rom 5:9

9 Much more then, being now justified/acquitted by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

So, Justification of this sort is not the result or consequences of ones faith, as an act of the creature, but solely a consequence of the Death of Christ, or His Blood, and God as Judge, adjudged all for whom Christ died unto Life, hence Rom 5:18

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Its a Free Gift given by imputation without faith Rom 5:16

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

 

[Josheb]

Smoke is thick in here,, I'm still waiting for a few alleged facts from your post #75

It is a fact the late date comes from Irenaeus' speculation. In "Against Heresies" he reports, "For that was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." That's where the late date comes from. Irenaeus wasn't born until 130AD and is estimated to have been written around 180 AD. That would make Irenaeus' claim almost 100 years after the fact. It's also odd because Domitian's persecution of Christians began in 89, so why does Irenaeus place Revelation at the end of the persecution. Most of Revelation's content would be over by then and the use of Irenaeus would then, paradoxically, support a preterist view of Revelation.* A few of the other ECFs repeated Irenaeus' claim, even though Irenaeus never provided any evidence (or proof) to support his claim. It is a fact all the other NT books are dated early, making Revelation an exception to the rule that warrants explanation other than one man's speculation. It is a fact there is no external evidence supporting the Domitian dated speculation. It is a fact Revelation 1:19 states some of its content was going on at the time of the book being written and that includes John self-reporting his being a partaker in the tribulation. If John was 20 when he first began following Jesus circa 30AD, then he'd be 86 years old in 96AD when the book was penne, according to late daters. That's possible, but extremely unlikely. One source has John vigorously riding a horse after his release from Patmos, which would be another extraordinary feat for an 86-year-old man. It is a fact the text of Revelation states those who pierced Jesus would see his return (Rev. 1:7). That would mean Jews of the Sanhedrin and Roman soldiers involved in the crucifixion would also have to still be living in 96AD. It is a fact the average age of a Centurion was well into his 30s, if not 40s, before obtaining that rank. That would mean a 35-year-old Centurion living in 33AD would be 98 years old. It is a fact the average life expectancy of a person living in the first century was 35 years, making the average newborn at Calvary dead by the time of the Jewish War 68-74AD.

There is much more, an entire book's worth of more information written by Ken Gentry and the case made from that information is so persuasive that it convinced one of the greatest Christian teachers of the last century to change his position (along with many others). I gotta go but I'll check back. The simple fact is the late date is built on baseless speculation, and it is that position that should be justifying itself.













* Yes, preterists would have to adjust the dating but the fact would still remain: much of the content had already transpired.
.

 

[prism]

It is a fact the late date comes from Irenaeus' speculation. In "Against Heresies" he reports, "For that was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." That's where the late date comes from. Irenaeus wasn't born until 130AD and is estimated to have been written around 180 AD. That would make Irenaeus' claim almost 100 years after the fact. It's also odd because Domitian's persecution of Christians began in 89, so why does Irenaeus place Revelation at the end of the persecution. Most of Revelation's content would be over by then and the use of Irenaeus would then, paradoxically, support a preterist view of Revelation.* A few of the other ECFs repeated Irenaeus' claim, even though Irenaeus never provided any evidence (or proof) to support his claim. It is a fact all the other NT books are dated early, making Revelation an exception to the rule that warrants explanation other than one man's speculation. It is a fact there is no external evidence supporting the Domitian dated speculation. It is a fact Revelation 1:19 states some of its content was going on at the time of the book being written and that includes John self-reporting his being a partaker in the tribulation. If John was 20 when he first began following Jesus circa 30AD, then he'd be 86 years old in 96AD when the book was penne, according to late daters. That's possible, but extremely unlikely. One source has John vigorously riding a horse after his release from Patmos, which would be another extraordinary feat for an 86-year-old man. It is a fact the text of Revelation states those who pierced Jesus would see his return (Rev. 1:7). That would mean Jews of the Sanhedrin and Roman soldiers involved in the crucifixion would also have to still be living in 96AD. It is a fact the average age of a Centurion was well into his 30s, if not 40s, before obtaining that rank. That would mean a 35-year-old Centurion living in 33AD would be 98 years old. It is a fact the average life expectancy of a person living in the first century was 35 years, making the average newborn at Calvary dead by the time of the Jewish War 68-74AD.

There is much more, an entire book's worth of more information written by Ken Gentry and the case made from that information is so persuasive that it convinced one of the greatest Christian teachers of the last century to change his position (along with many others). I gotta go but I'll check back. The simple fact is the late date is built on baseless speculation, and it is that position that should be justifying itself.



* Yes, preterists would have to adjust the dating but the fact would still remain: much of the content had already transpired.
.

Equally I asked Google AI for arguments for late dating of Revelation;, then argument for early dating...

"
Arguments for a late dating of the Book of Revelation, typically around 95-96 AD, include internal evidence like the prosperity of Laodicea, which suggests a time after the earthquake that devastated the city, and the description of the church in Smyrna, which implies a period of growth that likely took longer than an early date would allow. Additionally, the use of "Babylon" as a code name for Rome, rather than Jerusalem, points to a later period, as does the emphasis on emperor worship and the imperial cult.

Elaboration:

• Laodicea's Prosperity:
  The church in Laodicea is described as wealthy and complacent, which doesn't fit the historical reality of the city's destruction by an earthquake in AD 60 and the subsequent 30 years it took to rebuild. This suggests the letter to Laodicea was written after the city had recovered, implying a date after AD 70.
  
  
• Emperor Worship and the Imperial Cult:
  The late date allows for a more developed understanding of emperor worship and the imperial cult, which is a significant theme in Revelation. The descriptions of the "beast" and its worship seem to fit the context of a more established imperial cult than one that would have been present before the destruction of Jerusalem.
  
  
• "Babylon" as Rome:
  The interpretation of "Babylon" as a code word for Rome, rather than Jerusalem, is a common argument for a later date. Some scholars argue that the reference to the city ruling over the kings of the earth (Rev 18:18) points to Rome, which was the dominant power at the time.
  
  
• Irenaeus's Testimony:
  Irenaeus, a Church Father who lived in the late 2nd century, is often cited as supporting a late date for Revelation. He connects the book with the reign of Emperor Domitian, further suggesting a date around 95-96 AD.
  
  
• Clement of Alexandria's Testimony:
  Clement of Alexandria, another Church Father, also supports the late date by mentioning John's exile on Patmos during the reign of a "tyrant," which is widely interpreted as Domitian.
  
  
• Literary Features:
  Some scholars point to stylistic and literary differences between Revelation and earlier New Testament writings, suggesting a later date. For example, the use of the term "church" and the emphasis on the nearness of Jesus' coming are seen as characteristics of a later literary style.
  
  
• Possible Early Date Arguments:
  While this explanation focuses on the late date, it's worth noting that there are also arguments for an early date, often linked to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the arguments for the late date are generally considered stronger by most scholars today.
• 
  FOR
  Arguments for an early dating of the Book of Revelation, specifically before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, center on internal textual evidence and historical context. Proponents argue that the temple's presence in Revelation (Rev 11:1-2) indicates it was written before its destruction. Additionally, some interpret the "seven kings" passage in Revelation 17:1-16 as referring to a succession of Roman emperors, with Nero being the sixth, suggesting an early date before Nero's death.
  
  Here's a more detailed breakdown:
  Internal Evidence:
  
  • Temple in Jerusalem:
    The book of Revelation mentions a temple in Jerusalem (Rev 11:1-2). Early dating proponents argue that the temple was still standing when John wrote, as the book describes it being measured and presumably used for worship. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, this suggests an earlier date of composition.
    
  • The Seven Kings:
    Revelation 17:1-16 discusses seven kings of Rome, with five having fallen, one currently reigning (the sixth), and another yet to come (the seventh). Early dating advocates identify the sixth king as Nero, who reigned until 68 AD, further supporting an early date before 70 AD.
    
  Historical Context:
  
  • Jewish Persecution:
    .
    Revelation portrays intense persecution of Christians, which some link to the period of Jewish persecution before the destruction of the temple. The fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD marked a significant shift in Jewish power and influence, potentially diminishing the intensity of such persecution.
    
  • Preterist Interpretation:
    .
    Some scholars, known as Preterists, interpret Revelation as primarily fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. This view necessitates an early date for the book, as the events it describes would have already occurred by the time of a later dating.
    
  • Early Church Writings:
    .
    Some early Christian writings suggest that Paul may have followed the pattern of the seven letters in Revelation when writing to the seven churches, implying that Revelation was written before Paul's letters.
  
  

 

[Josheb]

Equally I asked Google AI for arguments for late dating of Revelation;, then argument for early dating...

I see. Now we're getting our rationale from AI.

"
Arguments for a late dating of the Book of Revelation, typically around 95-96 AD, include internal evidence like the prosperity of Laodicea, which suggests a time after the earthquake that devastated the city, and the description of the church in Smyrna, which implies a period of growth that likely took longer than an early date would allow. Additionally, the use of "Babylon" as a code name for Rome, rather than Jerusalem, points to a later period, as does the emphasis on emperor worship and the imperial cult.

Elaboration:

• Laodicea's Prosperity:
  The church in Laodicea is described as wealthy and complacent, which doesn't fit the historical reality of the city's destruction by an earthquake in AD 60 and the subsequent 30 years it took to rebuild. This suggests the letter to Laodicea was written after the city had recovered, implying a date after AD 70.

Or it was written prior to the earthquake or in remembrance of the city's character. Why would a city in recovery be complacent.

• Emperor Worship and the Imperial Cult:
  The late date allows for a more developed understanding of emperor worship and the imperial cult, which is a significant theme in Revelation. The descriptions of the "beast" and its worship seem to fit the context of a more established imperial cult than one that would have been present before the destruction of Jerusalem.

That's just hogwash. Caligula, Claudius, and Nero were the pinnacle of the imperial cult. Chaos ensued after them, with Rome going through four emperors in one year. Vespasian and Titus restored the empire, the former reorganizing it and promoting loyalty within its ranks, especially among its military. Domitian was an autocrat who brough division back, conflicting with the Senate, raising taxes and confiscating property and, by comparison, his persecution of Christians paled to that of Nero. Both Vespasian and his son, Titus, died of illness, not murder. It is true Domitian revived the imperial cult, bringing back the dominus et deus (master and god) designation but nearly all of the Roman emperors were deified either during their life or afterwards. The empire revolted under Domitian, who was assassinated after unleashing a series of executions and persecutions of Romans, not just scapegoated Christians. Peace followed Domitian with Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, and almost 100 years of civil life in Rome. Furthermore, Nero was literally cale "The Beast," for his practice of wearing a bear's skin as he performed sadistic sex on others (males and females, free and slave) that on occasion included his literally biting people so violently he drew blood, tore off flesh, and on at least one occasion killed a man tied to a pole while he sodomized him.

• "Babylon" as Rome:
  The interpretation of "Babylon" as a code word for Rome, rather than Jerusalem, is a common argument for a later date. Some scholars argue that the reference to the city ruling over the kings of the earth (Rev 18:18) points to Rome, which was the dominant power at the time.

ROTFLMBO!!! The scriptures themselves frequently compare Jerusalem to Babylon, not Rome. Most of the Romans 18 passage could be attributed to either city but verse 16's "Woe, woe, the great city, she who was clothed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls....." is a direct description of the garments worn by the Levitical priesthood (See Exodus 28 and 39). The Bible trumps AI.

• Irenaeus's Testimony:
  Irenaeus, a Church Father who lived in the late 2nd century, is often cited as supporting a late date for Revelation. He connects the book with the reign of Emperor Domitian, further suggesting a date around 95-96 AD.

I've already addressed the Irenaeus matter. His was a conjecture without any evidence made almost a century after Revelation was written (even if it was written at a later date). A few later ECFs replicated the conjecture as hearsay. No one provided any evidence to support Irenaeus' claim.

• 
  
  
• Clement of Alexandria's Testimony:
  Clement of Alexandria, another Church Father, also supports the late date by mentioning John's exile on Patmos during the reign of a "tyrant," which is widely interpreted as Domitian.

Clement is referencing Irenaeus.

• Literary Features:
  Some scholars...

Fallacious appeal to authority. Some scholars don't.

• Possible Early Date Arguments:
  While this explanation focuses on the late date, it's worth noting that there are also arguments for an early date, often linked to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the arguments for the late date are generally considered stronger by most scholars today.

That is no longer true. The late-date viewpoint gained following after the inception of Liberal Theology and modern futurism (Dispensational Premillennialism). Following the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls and other artifacts of antiquity discovered during the last two centuries the early date is gaining favor.

• • Temple in Jerusalem:
    The book of Revelation mentions a temple in Jerusalem (Rev 11:1-2). Early dating proponents argue that the temple was still standing when John wrote, as the book describes it being measured and presumably used for worship. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, this suggests an earlier date of composition.
  • The Seven Kings:
    Revelation 17:1-16 discusses seven kings of Rome, with five having fallen, one currently reigning (the sixth), and another yet to come (the seventh). Early dating advocates identify the sixth king as Nero, who reigned until 68 AD, further supporting an early date before 70 AD.

Yep. The Bible trumps AI.

 

[prism]

see. Now we're getting our rationale from AI.

Not much difference from Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell. (post #79)

 

[Josheb]

Not much difference from Ken Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell. (post #79)

How would you know if the book has never been read?

 

[prism]

How would you know if the book has never been read?

Reading post #79 & #86, I'd say you have gotten your rationale from Gentry. So it's AI contra Gentry?

 

[brightfame52]

More on Rom 4:5 Ungodly Justified !

Rom 4:5

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Folks we do not believe in Justification by Faith unless we understand that we were Justified first by God while in a ungodly and faithless state !

The statement "him that justifieth the ungodly" is true only if He does Justify them while being Ungodly, being ungodly as in the present tense, while presently being in a state of Ungodliness. The scripture proves that God's Elect, those Christ died for Rom 8:33-34, that while in an active state of ungodliness, that at the same time they were in a state of passive Justification of Life Rom 5:18b

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The reason for this is because all for whom He died, has had a Robe of Righteousness imputed to them, Fod God hath made Him be unto them 1 Cor 1:30

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

And again, this while we are being in ourselves ungodly and enemies Rom 5:10, and such scripture as these establish the fact that God's Elect whom Christ died are Justified before God prior, anterior to Faith !

 

[Arial]

The statement "him that justifieth the ungodly" is true only if He does Justify them while being Ungodly, being ungodly as in the present tense, while presently being in a state of Ungodliness. The scripture proves that God's Elect, those Christ died for Rom 8:33-34, that while in an active state of ungodliness, that at the same time they were in a state of passive Justification of Life Rom 5:18b

That is not what that means. This is what it means:
Eph 2:1-10

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience---among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ---by grace you have been saved---and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We were all in this same condition before being regenerated and given the faith that places us in Christ and imputes his righteousness to us (justified). Justification is a legal declaration, therefore there is no such thing as passive justification. Jesus did the work for us to be justified before we ever came to faith. And we (the elect) were predestined before the foundations of the world to come to Christ and in him, through faith in him and his work, be justified.

If we were already justified, there is no need of faith, and the statement of God making us alive while we were in that state of ungodliness in Eph 2, would be meaningless.

 

[brightfame52]

@Arial

That is not what that means.

Yes it does, and I explained why.

John Gill saw it as well:

but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly: or that ungodly one: particular reference is had to Abraham, who in his state of unregeneracy was an ungodly person; as all God's elect are in a state of nature, and are such when God justifies them, being without a righteousness of their own; wherefore he imputes the righteousness of another, even that of his own Son, unto them: and though he justifies the ungodly, he does not justify their ungodliness, but them from it; nor will he, nor does he leave them to live and die in it; now to him that worketh not, that is perfect righteousness; or has no opportunity of working at all; or what he does, he does not do, that he might be justified by it; but exercises faith on God as justifying persons, who, like himself, are sinners, ungodly and destitute of a righteousness: Romans 4:5 Commentaries: But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

 

[Arial]

@Arial



Yes it does, and I explained why.

John Gill saw it as well:

Putting something in a quote box like that makes it impossible to highlight and discuss particular points. The entire quote will not even appear in the reply. So about all I can do here is point out that what you highlighted in red as proof that we are born justified before we come to faith---well Gill did not say that. He said exactly what Eph 2 says.

 

[brightfame52]

Putting something in a quote box like that makes it impossible to highlight and discuss particular points. The entire quote will not even appear in the reply. So about all I can do here is point out that what you highlighted in red as proof that we are born justified before we come to faith---well Gill did not say that. He said exactly what Eph 2 says.

I see the quote just fine

 

[Arial]

I see the quote just fine

Hit the reply button at the bottom of that post like I did to respond to it, and see if you do. Do you see it in my response to your post where you had that quote? The one #94 responded to.

 

[brightfame52]

Hit the reply button at the bottom of that post like I did to respond to it, and see if you do. Do you see it in my response to your post where you had that quote? The one #94 responded to.

It looks fine to me, and i prefer not to go back and forth about it

 

[Eleanor]

If it's true, that 'justification by faith' is the article by which the church stands or falls, then why did not Paul write the book of Romans first, since the book of Romans is foundational to the article of justification?
Instead, most scholars believe it was 1 Thessalonians. At least Martin Luther was consistent in this that he placed Romans as the first written epistle

Relevance?

Who authorized your ordo salutis?

 

[Josheb]

Reading post #79 & #86, I'd say you have gotten your rationale from Gentry. So it's AI contra Gentry?

The parts I provided from scripture are neither AI nor Gentry. Scripture trumps them both.

There are also several arguments from silence, such as there being no mention of Peter or Paul's death (unless they are perhaps the two witnesses that get murdered). There's no mention of Jerusalem's destruction. Jerusalem's destruction would have had enormous effect on both Acts and Revelation. Revelation doesn't mention yellow-bellied hornswagglers, either, so there are limits to this argument, but it is strange there's not mention of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction and the explicit need to build another for any temple-related prophecy to come true. Futurist assume another temple will be built and deny the possibility of either standing temple's relevance. That's odd if a late date is correct.

No one needs AI or Gentry to understand that or what I previously posted. I wonder why you're not addressing the errors AI made. Anyone can look up the history I covered and verify what I wrote. AI got a bunch of stuff wrong and appears to be selective with its use of history and entirely neglectful (if not ignorant) of scriptural content.

 

[prism]

The parts I provided from scripture are neither AI nor Gentry. Scripture trumps them both.

agreed

No one needs AI or Gentry to understand that or what I previously posted. I wonder why you're not addressing the errors AI made.

I threw it out for entertainment purposes only, as I see most eschatological views. I, especially don't take AI seriously as some do.

 

[brightfame52]

Adds nothing to Justification before God !

Faith, or believing, the act of the creature [old or new] adds nothing to Justification before God, that fact was accomplished solely by Christ's Blood, however it does give Joy and Comforth in the Knowledge of the fact, Paul's meaning here Rom 15:13

Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Note: Believing is through the Power of the Holy Ghost !

Yet Justification is a Divine Fact before we believe it, Faith causes us to believe the Fact of our free Justification, as it is made known in the Gospel Rom 1:17. Justification is our Righteousness, and is made known to the Spiritual eye of Faith, and so the Gospel is also called the word of Faith Rom 10:8,17 !