Desperate Don. Deflect, Dodge & Duck!
(Don as of Jan 10th is threatening to pull out of our informal debte)
Day 1 Dec 17/18
https://www.facebook.com/groups/635792663293581/946168835589294/?
comment_id=946546148884896&reply_comment_id=947314448808066&no
tif_id=1545051192470616¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I think just the opposite, my friend. Is Christ's work
a past thing? Is salvation based on a past event? Justification, redemption,
salvation are all based on the past event, applied at his parousia, which was
at the judgment of Babylon.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston you like most miss the point. I tried to make it
clearer in my last video as it is a different argument when it comes to the
soteriological implications of FP. But, all the top Roman Commentator's and
Protestant scholar's (even Rome to a degree) all believe the act of
justification, is bringing the verdict of a FUTURE judgment to the sinner's life
into the here and now. "declared righteous'' is the verdict. This is courtroom,
forensic, [Rpm 3:19-26; 8:33-34] All I did in the past since I have studied this
doctrine a lot, was make the connection of what I already knew to be true. So
this is a NARROW argument, not a broad sweeping soteriological one. I'd
rather if one watched the first video before even responding as nobody yet
gets it except a couple that actually understand the doctrine of justification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3R-K1mrs84&index=9...
Joel Sexton This one on Rom 8:33-34 is the critical passage. Wright, Mounce
quoting BAGD and going to the greek do the same tie in and show the Greek
text is speaking of a courtroom in the future judgment. This is savage and
brutal for FP. No future judgment today, NO justification i.e. salvation for
sinner's today! The implications are staggering to say the least!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wmfiSTsw0I...
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I watched the video. I agree to a degree, but, the
fact is that the future judgment that the NT writers were anticipating, the
righteousness of justification that would come was coming soon. Paul eagerly
anticipated that event, Galatians 5:5 as did Peter in 2 Peter 3. That judgment
is never posited as far off.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston well if you watched the video then you know
according to the Greek text in Rom 8:33-34 we have a FUTURE judgment
brought into the here and now in the act of justification. So if in fact the
judgment took place in the past, justification becomes impossible. PAST
judgment=no justification for sinner's today
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston issue is the IMPLICATIONS of an A.D. 70 judgment
Joel Sexton I argued this leading up to the podcast and debate with Miano
and on his podcast. Still hold to Sola Fide,so my views on justification, (the
heart of the gospel) are still the same, but I buried these implications
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I am more than happy to discuss those
implications. However, if the foundational premise is misguided, and, if the
implications deny the timing of the judgment, then our implications may be
wrong.
Joel Sexton I'd suggest both if your going to carry on this discussion
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I think it was the one on The Gospel Versus Full
Preterism (with Romans 3:19f etc..
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston for the sake of argument let's say the judgment
was in fact in A.D. 70. No problem. This just means I.O. was right all along on
the IMPLICATIONS. But I will never give up the gospel so I.O. and their
liberalism is not for me
Joel Sexton Ok, the other one is short, 10 mins on Rom 8:33-34
Joel Sexton That is where I quote Wright and Mounce's commentaries on
Romans. Even in the translations, this is clearly a judgment scene but they
get into the Greek and leave no doubt as to how only FUTURE to us judgment
can work in justification. Something I knew when I started labouring through
this issue 13 years ago coming out of the gospel deprived SDA cult
Joel Sexton For the record. You won't hear this from any I.O. advocate I always
knew the judgment is tied into justification because unlike most I studied the
issue heavily. Seen the implications when prepping to Miano
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton No, it does not support IO in the slightest. What it
shows is that the judgment that was near when the NT writers were
anticipating it- the arrival of full justification and righteousness-- came to a
reality and that from that point onward, any man and all men-- "whoever will
may come" can enter the city and there partake of the consummated world
of righteousness-- to find the healing that is there.
Wright and Mounce are right to notice the future tenses in those texts. They
are both wrong to deny the imminence of that judgment. Both of them
struggle with that imminence.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston full justification came into reality> What does that
mean?
Joel Sexton Justification takes place today
Joel Sexton Ya, that is diversion though Don, going to Rev 22. This is a narrow
argument. And seems you are avoiding it
Joel Sexton But again, full justification came into reality> What does that
mean?
Joel Sexton This is a deathblow Don. If you had a better grasp of what the
doctrine entails it might help, but I think you "might" see the train coming
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton What Christ initiated at the Cross was perfected at
the parousia. It is the consummation - finishing-- of the Atonement. It is the
full arrival of the "goal" the telos, of his work. The goal of his work was to set
aside the Old World where there was no life and righteousness, and to bring
in that New World, wherein dwells righteousness, and John said that New
Creation was near. The "goal" of Christ's work was about to be realized and,
as I just stated, from that point forward, any man can enter into that finished
work.
What was future in Romans 8 is fully realized in Revelation 21-22.
Hey, how you feeling?
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston so justification is no more after A.D. 70??? What
was future in Rom 8 was fully realized in Revelation 21-22" Amazing
admissions. No justification today. And justification of Rom 8:33-34 was "fully
relized in Revelation 21-22"
Joel Sexton So how are sinner's saved today Don, if in fact justificcation was
"fully realized in A.D. 70?
Joel Sexton Feeling good Don. You?
Joel Sexton So I am an extra: fired up" Don. Mean no disrespect. But it is
either the Gospel on one hand and Full Preterism on the other/ I choose the
gospel every time! I never could resolve this issue as it is impossible
Joel Sexton This is a more unique argument I guess, so if you want to get
back to me you can. Understandable as it is unique but exegetical when it
comes to judgment, courtroom, forensic language and the doctrine of
justification
OP. Exchange With Don Dec 27/18
My Justification/Judgment Implication argument has not been touched by anyone 6 months ago when I first tied it together (but buried it), even by Don K. Preston or any other FP "leader." Michael Miano took a stab at it but argued for a past judgment which is part of the argument taken for granted by me for the sake of argument. Then I posted a comment he made recently that he doesn't understand the thematic doctrine of Paul in Romans, Justification (Don doesn't understand it either), which is at the heart of the gospel and my argument. So he defeated a strawman he vigorously tried to tare down. The same thing NOW/ Nobody can answer, they would if they could, but they can't so they won't Full Preterism is done like dinner!
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton, I am basically not on FB much until after the first of the year (and my B-Day). But, since you say that I don't understand the doctrine of justification, please outline for me, point by point, where and what I do not understand.
When I get back "in the saddle" I will be happy to address.…See More
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston. How about we stop beating around the bush and just address the argument. My understanding is quite clear from what I put out. Would be nice to see YOUR view. Is it the NPP> And np, Early birthday wishes Don.
Don K. Preston Not beating around the bush. You basic, foundational argument is-- correct me if I am wrong-- that unless there is a future judgment, that there is no justification now. Correct?
NPP ? clarification please! :-)
I gotta run. Headed out of state here shortly after I do a bunch of other FB business -- just the necessary stuff.
Joel Sexton The implications of a PAST last judgment are very serious Don. The gospel is at stake. As Luther said to Erasmus, "you did not bother me with trifles, but went for the jugular" paraphrase. You interact with anyone that mentions your name. I think the ramifications of no salvation today is of more importance most discussions.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston yes that is my argument. NPP. New Perspective On Paul.N.t. Wright, E.P. Sanders, Dunn hold to it
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston understand. I still like you Don. No hard feelings. I know your busy, but if I see you spending mornings on here debating with 10 guys at once I will call you out
Jan 2 Exchange
Instead of responding openly to my post in the group for all to see he sends me a private message. Here it is
7:15 AM
I gave some answers to Conley, regarding his presuppostions about:
The creation in Romans 8
The implications of God's omniscience.
His presuppositions on the election.
I did not do a point by point, but, I presented enough to call his entire article into question.
I hope to address your fundamental thesis that justification / salvation demands a future judgment before long.
I have been focused on writing some stuff on the IO nonsense. Still have one or two articles to finish on that.
Jan 2 Exchange
Joel Sexton 3:05 PM
Don, I have np you messaging me. But you should have openly responded to my post in the group
Joel, as I mentioned I have been, still am, basically off line till Monday. Only post a small bit early this morning the left for the day
I understand, but you should have posted that instead of sending through text. Np you messaging me at all but this should be done in the open Don
Lance will never get a point by point refutation you stated and I doubt I will. That's fine. Just out it in the open for all to see
Anyway's that is that I guess
Jeff Cunningham, Lance Conley, Stephen Whitsett posted different times that nobody could refute it in the summer (including yourself) and the same is true now. Your going out of town again, understand, but this seems to be a habit. I don't expect a response really Don, as the argument cannot be refuted, but wanted to openly call you out again as I said I would since a lot of mornings you spend hrs on here responding to every Tom Dick & Harry that even mentions your name. Take care
Don K, Preston Your argument, as I understand it, is quite easily refuted my friend.
It is your argument that deprived us of present salvation.
I will address it in due time.
Keep in mind, Joel, that you do not actually have the right to determine who and when I respond. With respect, that is a bit presumptuous. You do not set my agenda or my priorities.
Have a good day
Don, I agree, I don't at all. But as I said. You have time to take on everbody that ever so as mentions your name in a tag every morning for hrs and set aside other responses. You put this off in the summer as well when all hell broke loose in Barry;s group when I first introduced this, so your track record isn't the best in that regard. Have a good one
Chat Conversation End
Type a message...
3:05 PM
Don, I have np you messaging me. But you should have openly responded to my post in the group
Don K. Preston Joel, as I mentioned I have been, still am, basically off line till Monday. Only post a small bit early this morning the left for the day
Joel Sexton I understand, but you should have posted that instead of sending through text. Np you messaging me at all but this should be done in the open Don
Lance will never get a point by point refutation you stated and I doubt I will. That's fine. Just out it in the open for all to see
Anyway's that is that I guess
Jeff Cunningham, Lance Conley, Stephen Whitsett posted different times that nobody could refute it in the summer (including yourself) and the same is true now. Your going out of town again, understand, but this seems to be a habit. I don't expect a response really Don, as the argument cannot be refuted, but wanted to openly call you out again as I said I would since a lot of mornings you spend hrs on here responding to every Tom Dick & Harry that even mentions your name. Take care
Don K. Preston Your argument, as I understand it, is quite easily refuted my friend.
It is your argument that deprived us of present salvation.
I will address it in due time.
Keep in mind, Joel, that you do not actually have the right to determine who and when I respond. With respect, that is a bit presumptuous. You do not set my agenda or my priorities.
Have a good day
Joel Sexton I agree, I don't at all. But as I said. You have time to take on everbody that ever so as mentions your name in a tag every morning for hrs and set aside other responses. You put this off in the summer as well when all hell broke loose in Barry;s group when I first introduced this, so your track record isn't the best in that regard. Have a good one
Chat Conversation End
Hope you had a great Christmas. Happy New Year!
Oh, I am basically out of pocket until Monday.
Chat Conversation End
Jan 2
3:05 PM
Don, I have np you messaging me. But you should have openly responded to my post in the group
Joel, as I mentioned I have been, still am, basically off line till Monday. Only post a small bit early this morning the left for the day
Don, I understand, but you should have posted that instead of sending through text. Np you messaging me at all but this should be done in the open Don
Lance will never get a point by point refutation you stated and I doubt I will. That's fine. Just out it in the open for all to see
Anyway's that is that I guess
Jeff Cunningham, Lance Conley, Stephen Whitsett posted different times that nobody could refute it in the summer (including yourself) and the same is true now. Your going out of town again, understand, but this seems to be a habit. I don't expect a response really Don, as the argument cannot be refuted, but wanted to openly call you out again as I said I would since a lot of mornings you spend hrs on here responding to every Tom Dick & Harry that even mentions your name. Take care
Don Your argument, as I understand it, is quite easily refuted my friend.
It is your argument that deprived us of present salvation.
I will address it in due time.
Keep in mind, Joel, that you do not actually have the right to determine who and when I respond. With respect, that is a bit presumptuous. You do not set my agenda or my priorities.
Have a good day
Don, I agree, I don't at all. But as I said. You have time to take on everbody that ever so as mentions your name in a tag every morning for hrs and set aside other responses. You put this off in the summer as well when all hell broke loose in Barry;s group when I first introduced this, so your track record isn't the best in that regard. Have a good one
Chat Conversation End
Jan 8 2019
Don K. Preston, you want to debate everything under the sun but the implication arguments as Lance Conley pointed out. I believe it is you are being "evasive" and are running scared. My implication argument. If the judgment is in the PAST, there is no way for there to be any justification, i.e. salvation today. As you mentioned "Greek commentator's" above I gave you a couple that actually states this. Your beloved N.t. Wright, Robert Mounce for starter's Deflect, Dodge & Duck desperate Don!
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Nope, not dodging anything my friend. You have it backward, as does Wright, Mounce, etc. The NT writers saw the coming of justification, righteousness, salvation at the parousia-- that much is certain. And that means that if the parousia / judgment is still future, there is no salvation today.
Oh, and for curiosity, when did those NT writers say that parousia to bring redemption, salvation, grace, etc. was going to be?
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston Wright believes justification is complete at the Parousia as well! Hence, his New Perspective on Paul. But you're still not "getting it." For the sake of argument let's say the judgment was in A.D. 70. Fine. Great. If this is so, the justification, which is bringing the FUTURE verdict of "justified" (acquittal, pronounced, declared righteous) into the HERE AND NOW in the believing sinner's life. That is the framework Paul used as well as the Greek text. So Wright who believes in the erroneous false gospel of progressive justification like you, YET states in Rom 8:1, 33-34 we have the last judgment inextricably tied to justification. The FUTURE verdict. The only way one can be justified if the verdict is a future one pronounced over them. See the problem? But very very few have actually studied this doctrine (which is the heart of the gospel) so it goes right over their heads as it is now with you. If this is the only response I will get from you on this PAST judgment implication argument, then I will make sure all can see (as many do see the savage implications) I will be sure to let all know Don has no answers but to throw up a Hail Mary with a progressive justification, which doesn;t help
Joel Sexton Curiosity killed the cat. I am not like most who will let you lead them around with red herrings. A PAST judgment means it is impossible for there to be justification for us today. That is what has been, and still is on the table
Joel Sexton COC minster all those years, little wonder you haven't a clue when it comes to justification or imputation
Joel Sexton Dodger Don is gone again
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I understand pretty well what Wright is saying. But, he, like most, ignores when that parousia, that judgment of the parousia was to be. He avoids that issue like the plague, as you well know.
My point is that, as Isaiah 42 teaches, Christ was to "establish justice and judgment in the earth." What Christ fully set in place at his parousia is a one time for all time event that men either enter into by faith-- receiving the blessings of that finished work, or, by refusing, they receive the results of that rebellion.
This is the picture of Revelation, where the "finished", perfected, New Jerusalem is there for any person to enter and to be healed. The work was finished, the choice of entering that finished work is up to us. Thus, once again, if Christ has not come, there is no salvation today.
This is no "Hail Mary" as you are claiming, but the reality of what the Bible says about:
1. The connection between the parousia and salvation. Which you acknowledge.
2. When that parousia was to come.
Now, you really did not address my question about when that parousia was to be except to say, "Well, yea but...." That is not an exegetical answer, nor is it logical or persuasive.
When does the Bible say that Christ was coming to bring salvation.
Do you believe that we have, objectively, truly and fully, salvation and eternal life-- now? Or, is it just a promise for us, while we wait for an imaginary "end of time"?
Roy Runyon, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Mike Sullivan, Joel Sexton, Holger Neubauer, Roy Runyon, Brent Bischel, Barry Isaacs,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston, I will not be lead around. You are again for the third time avoiding the argument. I take it for granted you place the judgment in A.D. 70, hence the implication argument. Again, If the judgment is in the PAST then there can be nobody "justified" (dikiaoo) declared righteous, judgment, forensic term. This is how Paul frames it. So you going to Rev 22 the gates open etc I take for granted you believe that, but it does not deal HEAD ON as you know with the argument that is on the table. This is the third time you are deflecting Desperate Don. Anyone with half a brain cell can see what the argument entails. And you are avoiding it like the plague. Ethier. 1) You cannot overcome the implications. 2)You haven't a clue as to Paul's theme throughout Romans, the doctrine of justification. Rom 1:16-17 is the thematic statement of the book. I believe it is both the former and the latter. You cannot and will not overcome this PAST judgment implication argument, cause if you could you would, but you can't so you won't. Again, I am not like some of the half-baked ones that will let you lead them around with red herrings. Sorry. Third, encounter on this and we have no response to the DIRECT argument.
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Joel Quintero no, it is you avoiding the entire point.
Let's see, if we set out to build a house, must the future construction, the "present tense" construction be brought into the present in order for us to receive the blessings of that house?
Or,
is it the case that when the house is built, completed, that we enter into the full blessings of that house?
The implication-- the undeniable implication is that if the house is not finished-- if Christ did not come to bring salvation-- you have no salvation. All you have is the promise of it.
Show me where this is a deflection. Show me where I am dodging. I have shown-- from text-- that Christ would "establish justice and judgment in the earth." Did he do that? Yes or No?
I have shown that salvation, redemption, grace, etc. was to come at the parousia and have asked you, three times now, when that parousia was to take place. If you want to see obfuscation and evasion, read your own comments. Stating that you know what I believe about this is not an answer.
When does the Bible say Jesus was coming to bring salvation, Joel Sexton?
Did he come?
Did He bring that salvation?
The implications of a NO Answer are devastating.
Roy Runyon, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Mike Sullivan, Joel Sexton, Holger Neubauerr, Brent Bischel, Barry Isaacs,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston, your famous for this and no I won't bite. You REFUSE to deal with the INITIAL argument I brought up previously and again today. 1) You cannot overcome the implications. 2) You haven't a clue as to the doctrine of justification. Again it is both the former and latter. THE issue on the table is this. If the judgment is in the PAST, then there is no justification, i.e. salvation for us today. Why? Because that is how Paul frames his argument, in a courtroom, forensic judgment settings. The Greek of Rom 8:33-34. And even the word "justified'' is a forensic, courtroom, and judgment term. NOT GUILTY, Declared righteous. It is the FUTuRE verdict that is pronounced in the act of justification. No future judgment and verdict, no justification, and hence full preterism is indeed hyper-preterism as it also leads to Deism. We'll play some more paddy cakes later Dodger Don after I get some zzzz's, No red herrings from what my argument ACTUALLy entails!
Don K. Preston And so, you refuse to answer my direct questions even though I most assuredly did answer your claims. Come on now, my friend, surely you can do better, if what you are saying is true.
I understand what "forensic" means.
Your claim that if thee judgment is in the past there is no justification for us today is like saying, "Well, we finished building my house, but now that it is finished no one can life it it!"
Not a good argument. Not logical and not Biblical.
Get some rest.
Roy Runyon, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Mike Sullivan, Holger Neubauerr, Brent Bischel, Barry Isaacs,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston point out WHERE you directly answered my Past judgment implication argument DIRECTLY. You are using an analogy of "building a house" but won't even touch Paul's framework! So I am to buy into Don's Non-Biblical analogy over Paul's narrow, structured argument on only a FUTURE judgment verdict applies in the act of justification. Since you have not dealt with this (scroll up) you have done everything possible to get me off track of this narrow, focused argument. Like I said, Dishonest Don. I am not another half baked person going to chase your red herrings around while forgetting my own argument! Show us where you dealt directly with it.. You know you would if you could, but you can't so you won't. Like our other exchanges where I pounded the snot off you and you ran, I knew you would AGAIN resort to this red herring desperation!
Jan 9 2019
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton My analogy is perfectly Biblical. It is the analogy of the Temple of God-- i.e. the House of God. It was "under construction" from Pentecost onward, and consummated at th parousia. It was the "work" that God had begun and would complete at the Day of the Lord (Philippians 1:6).
According to your new paradigm, that house, that work, must always be under construction-- we can never live in it, because only a future consummation holds any validity. According to scripture, unless the parousia has taken place, we have no salvation.
I most assuredly did address your main point.
I pointed out that the NT writers assuredly do posit justification, righteousness, salvation, etc. in the future, at the parousia. That parousia would establish judgment in the earth. It would not end it. It would perfect it, and from that point forward, man could (can) enter into that perfected work. That is the picture of the New Creation.
I have asked you now - several times - to answer the question of when that parousai, and the New Creation was to come. No answer, and yet you keep saying that I am not answering you-- when I have.
Roy Runyon, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Holger Neubauer, Roy Runyon, Brent Bischel, Barry Isaacs,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston, you haven't touched the ACTUAL argument. If the judgment is in the past great. Have at er. But a PAST judgment does not work in Paul's framework. It is not a PAST judgment for current sins we are accepting the verdict of the judgment. For justification to work (which you don't understand, being a COC guy and all) it has to be the future verdict of "justified" (dikiaoo) ACQUITTED, NOT GUILTY, DECLARED RIGHTEOUS. Even the word itself is forensic and judicial. You cannot and will not overcome this biblical fact. Instead, you want me like some other half baked "opponent" to chase you around with your red herrings. No, the argument is on the table up for grabs. If the Parousia and the judgment took place in A.D. 70 then we have NO salvation today. And btw, justification is not progressive but a one-time act. But be that as it may, one of your favorite quotable scholar's N.T. Wright takes the same erroneous view that Justification is progressive like you, BUT in Romans (especially 8:1-4; 33-34) he states that the future judgment is brought into the here and now in justification. I'll post his comments since they are good enough when you appeal to them
"Whatever we think about that, with vv33-34 we are back to the lawcourt, as in the middle of chapter 3. In 2:1-16 the whole family faced the judgment of God: in 3:19-20 the whole world was on the dock, with no defense to offer against massive changes. Now we look around for possible accusers and find none. Any that may appear have to face that fact that God, the judge, is the justifier, in other words, that the verdict has already been pronounced by the judge whose righteousness has been fully displayed, And that verdict - that those in the Messian, marked, out by faith, are already seen as " righteous''' even ahead of the final vindication- is precisely what the law court dimension of ''justification'' is all about. We should note at this point Paul is once again speaking of the final day of judgment, as in 2:1-16 and 8:1. As he looks ahead to the future moment, he puts his confidence in the past event of justification and hence the present standing of God's people that results from it, knowing that God "those that God justified, God also glorified" The logic of justification comes full circle
The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Copyright 2015, Abingdon Press. vol ix, Romans, N.T. Wright, pgs. 520-521
Joel Sexton Legal Courtroom Scene & Savage BlowTo Past A.D. 70 Judgment [Rom 8:33-34]
by Joel Sexton
(Currently under revision)
[Rom 8:33-34]
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. [Rom 8:33-34]
The passage under consideration is very destructive to Full Preterism, as was Mike Tyson was to the heavyweight division. This is mainly for two reasons. First. [Rom 8:33-34] is a highly eschatological context in Romans. And second, the courtroom language in the Greek has this as the future judgment brought into the here and now, into the justified sinner's life. In other words, if the judgment has taken place in the past in A.D. 70, then there can be no justification for sinners at this present moment. This is a FUTURE verdict of "not guilty" and "righteous" for the sake of the merits of Christ being brought into the here and now. There is no justification without this FUTURE judgment verdict! This text is even more damaging than [Rom 3:19-36; 5:9-10] which would be a parallel passage on the doctrine of justification
Our first point is the context. It must be remembered that eschatology is just coming into the forefront in chapter 8 of Romans. This is significant as Paul places the passage under consideration smack dab in the middle of it all.
In [Rom 8:10-11] Paul speaks of the resurrection of the Romans, "mortal bodies" by the same Spirit that raised Christ. Next, in vs 17, he speaks of them as "heirs" In [Rom 8:18-24] he talks of the "not yet" of adoption, glorification, recreation & resurrection. [Rom 8:29-30] Paul speaks of what the Reformed would call the "Golden chain of redemption" or as I prefer an "ordo solutis. In vs. 29 he mentions being "conformed to the image of His Son" as the goal of all salvation, which is glorification and resurrection. In vs 30, he mentions those who would be "glorified." Then we have our passage vss. 33-34. And finally in vs 38 after speaking of persecutions, tribulation etc. will not keep the elect from the love of God. Also in vs 38, he states, "nor things to come." Then, of course, we get into [Rom 9-11[ which of course is eschatological.
So very clearly and distinctly we see our present passage is an eschatological one, with our second point laying the hammer down.
At this juncture, we will hit on our second reason for why this text is a savage against Full Preterist by examining it grammatically. We will quote the Greek scholar's and lexicon to first establish the courtroom language behind the greek which is also apparent in the English translation
A.T. Robertson states,
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? (τις εγκαλεσε κατα εκλεκτωνθεου?). Future active indicative of εγκαλεω, old verb, to come forward as accuser (forensic term) in a case in court, to impeach, as in Ac 19:40; 23:29; 26: 2, the only N.T. examples. Satan is the great Accuser of the brethren.accordingto his plan for justification ( 3:21-31). The Accuser must face the Judge with his charges. ]Rom 8:34]
Shall condemn (κατακρινων). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn). It is a bold accuser who can face God with false charges or with true ones for that matter for we have an "Advocate" at God's Court (1Jo 2:1 ), "who is at the right hand of God" (ος εστιν εν δεξια του θεου) "who also maketh intercession for us" (οςκα εντυγχανε υπερ ημων) [1]
Robinson in his greek English lexicon states; to call in, i. e. to demand; in N. T. to call in question, i.e. to accuse, arraign, bring a charge against, foil, [2]
Gerald R. Cragg in his commentary on Romans,
In this passage we have 1) the "accuser'' or the one bringing "a charge" against "God's elect." We also have 2) the accused party, "the elect" believer, 3)the Judge, God who is the "one who justifies." 4) And finally, we have a lawyer present. Our High Priest making intercession with the blood of His atonement. We have a similar passage in 1 Jn 2:1-2.
Condemn means to establish or prove guilt, not merely affirm it. [3]
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 Jn 2:1-2]
N.T. Wright from his massive commentary on Romans concerning our present text;
"Whatever we think about that, with vv33-34 we are back to the lawcourt, as in the middle of chapter 3. In 2:1-16 the whole family faced the judgment of God: in 3:19-20 the whole world was on the dock, with no defense to offer against massive changes. Now we look around for possible accusers and find none. Any that may appear have to face that fact that God, the judge, is the justifier, in other words, that the verdict has already been pronounced by the judge whose righteousness has been fully displayed, And that verdict - that those in the Messian, marked, out by faith, are already seen as " righteous''' even ahead of the final vindication- is precisely what the law court dimension of ''justification'' is all about. We should note at this point Paul is once again speaking of the final day of judgment, as in 2:1-16 and 8:1. As he looks ahead to the future moment, he puts his confidence in the past event of justification and hence the present standing of God's people that results from it, knowing that God "those that God justified, God also glorified" The logic of justification comes full circle [4]
Robert Mounce, in his standard work on Romans, states the following,
The Greek word for charge "egkaleō" {to bring a charge) is a legal technical term for bringing a charge against someone in the court of law (BAGD, 215). Used here in the future tense it points to the final judgment. [5]
Greek scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White has written this generation's most important work on the doctrine of justification in, "The God Who Justifies." Dr. White also beside the above also shows the power of the Greek text in [Rom 8:33-34]
The phrase "bring a charge" (ἐγκαλέω0) is a legal term. It is used in numerous ancient texts in this very context. At this point, Paul put this conversation squarely in the court of law. To bring a charge against God's elect is to engage in formal legal proceedings. Paul's question is rhetorical, meant to indicate the impossibility of the proposed action [6]
Notes
[1] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, pg 1200
[2] George Bell, London, 186 Flet Street, 1851, Dr. Robinson's Greek Lexicon To New Testament Lexicon, pg. 116
[3] Gerald R. Cragg, Romans, pg 529, The Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Vol. IX, Abingdon Press, New York, 1954
[4] The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Copyright 2015, Abingdon Press. vol ix, Romans, N.T. Wright, pgs. 520-521
[5] The New American Commentary, Vol. 27, Romans, Robert H. Mounce, 1995, B & H Publishing Group, pg. 190
[6] The God Who Justifies, The Doctrine Of Justification, Dr. James R, White, pg 249, Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Copyright 2001
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton My friend, you are either purposefully ignoring the argument or not understanding it.
Justification was perfected at parousia.
Righteousness was perfected at the parousia.
Salvation was perfected at the parousia.
The parousia was in AD 70-- when will you confront this?.
Therefore, salvation, justification, righteousness, etc., are realities NOW, in Christ. He perfected that work, and it is in the New Jerusalem, where all men are invite to enter.
If that work has not been perfected, then as I have stated repeatedly, all we have is the promise of salvation.
When will you actually address these issues?
Roy Runyon, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Holger Neubauer, Barry Isaacs, Michael Miano,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston when you address the fact that that your PAST judgment = no justification for sinners today. After all, you admitted before and have in my file that Wright and Mounce are right that justification and the judgment are inextricably tied together, And no righteousness is used in more than one sense as you know. Objective and Subjective. Justification is not progressive over the Christian's life. You are conflating justification and progressive sanctification. Stick to eschatology Don. Oh, wait, nevermind!
Don K. Preston BTW, apostolic succession is a theological myth. And the idea that the creeds and councils cannot be wrong is stunning. Hey, the Catholics have their creeds and the protestants have their's, and the Orthodox have their's, right? So, which creeds are truly inspired, and how do you know?
Joel Sexton, do you agree with Conley on Apostolic Succession? Just curious.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston what's this, beat around the bush hr again rofl
Joel Sexton I lean heavily towards Lutheranism when it comes to soteriology. They have a view of it, but very different than the RCC or EO. I reject apostolic succession but feel the creeds and first 7 Ecumenical Councils are foundational to Christianity. But my arguments always come from the text
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Nope, just curious. No biggy to me if you do or don't, but interesting that you won't.
Joel Sexton Lance is EO, while I lean towards Lutheranism
Joel Sexton Answer above
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston you're showing your ignorance. Four early creeds which the ROMAN Catholics, EO and Magisterial Reformation all held and hold too. Creeds and Confessions are two different things. One creed would be "No Creed but the bible!" which you preached for how many years as COC cult Pastor. Also, you do know that there is early creedal statements in the N.T. eh Don? 1 Cor 15:3f; Phil 2:5f etc, Anyways that is off the topic that you also don't have a clue on, justification tied into the judgment
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston is done like dinner. Going to eat and back to bed
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I know what a creed is. I know what councils were. I know what Confessions were.
I am very familiar with the fact that there are "Creedal" statements in the NT.
Pretty sure you know that I know all of this.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston not when you asserted that the RCC, EO and Protestant have different "creeds" Different "confessions" yes.
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Rabbit trail.
Justification was perfected at parousia. You are now positing that very thing, right, except you are now rejecting the Biblical testimony as to when the parousia occurred-- right?
Righteousness was perfected at the parousia.-- You are now positing that very thing, right, except you are now rejecting the Biblical testimony as to when the parousia occurred-- right?
Salvation was perfected at the parousia. You are now positing that very thing, right, except you are now rejecting the Biblical testimony as to when the parousia occurred-- right?
The parousia was in AD 70-- when will you confront this?.Joel Sexton, when was Jesus going to come and bring salvation?
Therefore, salvation, justification, righteousness, etc., are realities NOW, in Christ. He perfected that work, and it is in the New Jerusalem, where all men are invite to enter.
If that work has not been perfected, then as I have stated repeatedly, all we have is the promise of salvation.
In your paradigm, we do not and cannot have justification. Your suggestion that a future judgment is brought into the past is only valid in light of the fact that the NT writers invariably say that justification, redemption, salvation, etc. had been initiated, but would be consummated at the parousia -- which they also invariably say was near, coming soon, and was at hand. Christ was coming "in a very, very little while, and will not delay."
You are conspicuously ignoring all of this. When will you actually address these issues?
Roy Runyonn, William Bell, Daniel Rogerss, Julienne Chambers, Holger Neubauer, Barry Isaacs, Michael Miano,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston amazing. You built a straw man that you could easily knock down. Check my last comment above this one of yours. I DENY justification is progressive. I deny it is complete at the Parousia. I believe in Sola Fide. Justification is a one time act. Again you are conflating justification and progressive sanctification. Rabbit Trail? Our first discussion and now is on the implications of a PAST judgment. It is you going down "rabbit trails" doing everything you can to avoid the issue on the table. You pretend to answer then ask 100 questions. I told you before. This might work on other's but not on me. I don't like red herring's. You have yet to refute or answer my argument. The implications of a PAST judgment, means there is no justification today. When are you going to get this and deal with the implication's. Oh wait, you can't, cause if you would you could but you can't so you won't. I'm not budging off of the argument on the table. If salvation came in A.D. 70 it would be for them alone and not post .A.D 70, since you cannot bring a PAST verdict into crimes committed today. That is the framework Paul is using. I quoted your favorite scholar Wright on this on Rom 8:33-34 who like you takes a progressive view of justification AND YET says in justification it is the judgment of the future that is pronounced over the guilty party for the sake of the merits of Christ. What did we get from you Don? Natta. You keep giving your mantra that the judgment and salvation came in A.D. 70. Great. That is why my argument is an IMPLICATION argument. You assert that, which i take for granted. This just affirms my argument, that it is impossible for the verdict in justification to come to us unless the judgment is before us. Deal with the argument and stop jumping around asking if I believe in apostolic succession. BTW, you are so ignorant you stated that the EO, Catholics have different "creeds" They agree on the same 4 creeds. You are conflating creeds and confessions. If you won't and can't deal head-on with this narrow-focused argument then don't bother responding at all.
Jan 10/19
Don K. Preston
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Joel, it is pretty clearly you that is not dealing with the argument.
Was (Is) salvation, redemption, justification and all soteriological tenets to be consummated at the parousia or not? This is the essence of the eschatological issue. It is the heart of the issue.
You can talk about progressive, you can talk about forensic, you can talk about what you want to, but the bottom line is,
Was (Is) the soteriologial consummation to arrive at the parousia? Yes or No?
If yes-- and that is so patently clear as to be undeniable-- then the only questions to answer are:
1. When did -- or when will-- that parousia take place? I have asked you now, some four times to answer this very simple question but you refuse to address it, claiming it is a red herring. That is specious.
2. Would there be (Is there) application / entrance / participation into that soteriological consummation after the parousia.
Now, if you refuse to deal with these fundamental issues, there is not much to discuss.
William Bell, Daniel Rogers, Julienne Chambers, Roy Runyon, Steve Baisden, Holger Neubauer, Michael Miano,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston you are the king of pretending to deal with an argument or text then throw out a few red herring questions. Show me WHERE you directly interacted with the IMPLICATIONS of a PAST Judgment? As part of my implication argument, I take it for GRANTED that full preterists put salvation in A.D. 70 with the judgment. It is after all the argument I have been presenting. So no I am not some half baked idiot going to let you not deal head-on with the argument I raised for you to distract me from it. If the judgment is in the PAST Don, then there can be no justification today. Refute that by going to the actual justification texts and now everywhere else but. And of course, there isn't much to discuss as the argument on the table is still on the table yet to be knocked over by you! And you don't like the idea of me sticking to my guns and not let you get me off track with red herrings. If you cannot refute THE argument DIRECTLY, just admit it, Don. I know you are a prideful man and have a hard time EVER admitting you were ever proven wrong.
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I have repeately pointed out that the implications of what you are saying is that there is no salvation for us today. Have you dealt with that? No.
And you are still refusing to deal with the fundamental issues.
I have demonstrated that the parousia was to come in AD 70-- you have ignored it.
The Bible is clear that there was to be life and righteousness among man, living on earth, in time, in that New Creation. This is the consistent picture of Scripture.
Do you deny that there would be life, on earth, in the New Jerusalem, where there could be (can be) healing-- after the Day of the Lord?
And if you now posit the Day of the Lord in the future, then you still have to deal with this issue of life on earth, with man still finding healing, after the end.
So, once again, don't claim that I am not dealing with your arguments when I have presented what are the fundamentals of the controversy, and you continue to ignore them. Here are those issues again:
Was (Is) salvation, redemption, justification and all soteriological tenets to be consummated at the parousia or not? This is the essence of the eschatological issue. It is the heart of the issue.
You can talk about progressive, you can talk about forensic, you can talk about what you want to, but the bottom line is,
Was (Is) the soteriologial consummation to arrive at the parousia? Yes or No?
If yes-- and that is so patently clear as to be undeniable-- then the only questions to answer are:
1. When did -- or when will-- that parousia take place? I have asked you now, some four times to answer this very simple question but you refuse to address it, claiming it is a red herring. That is specious.
2. Would there be (Is there) application / entrance / participation into that soteriological consummation after the parousia.
William Bell, Daniel Rogers, Julienne Chambers, Roy Runyon, Steve Baisden, Holger Neubauer, Michael Miano,
Joel Sexton You state justification is progressive (which is part of the false gospel of Gal 1:6-5:4), and yet so does N.T. Wright who you agreed was right on Rom 8:33-34 being justification and the judgment. So Wright who takes your erroneous position, albeit states that Rom 8:1, 33-34 is the last judgment pronounced in justification, which you agreed. So then. Justification is bringing a future to us verdict of the last judgment into the here and now in sinner's lives according to Wright. The Pauline framework is ONLY a future verdict can work in the act of justification. Hence a PAST judgment means there can be no verdict pronounced over sinner's today. This is a narrow-focused argument, that doesn't need a shotgun blast of verses that I take for granted you believe in that way,, as my argument is an IMPLICATION one
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston my argument takes for granted you place the Parousia/Judgment in A.D. 70! Again with the red herrings, trees of the leaves blah blah blah. Put up or shut up! Deal DIRECTLY without obfuscation! How can justification be a reality TODAY if the judgment is in the past, and you admit Wright is correct in stating the two are inextricably tied together in Paul?
Joel Sexton Dishonest Don
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton No, you misunderstood my "agreement" with Wright. I agree on some things but not all.
I believe that justification is an objective reality, fully established through the cross, consummated at the parousia, and that when a person comes into Christ they enter that completed work.
In Romans, Paul was bringing justification from the future judgment into their present, and then assuring them that the future judgment was at hand:
The God of peace-- that is the God of peace between man and God-- justification, redemption, etc., shall crush Satan under your feet shortly."
Did he do that, Joel Sexton?
"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy."
He said their salvation was nearer then than when they first believed. That was the salvation to be brought at the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:25f. If not, why not.
Paul said they knew that the night was far spent and that "The Day has drawn near."
He told them to live righteously-- "as in the Day"-- that meant that they would be expected to live righteously-- to live lives of justification when and after the Day came.
Joel Sexton, why are you now denying all of this? Every bit of this goes to the heart of the issue, and yet, you continue to ignore it, claiming I am the one running from the issues. Not true.
William Bell, Daniel Rogers, Julienne Chambers, Roy Runyon, Steve Baisden, Holger Neubauer, Michael Miano,
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston ROFL. Ya, you dealt with my argument alright. By going EVERYWHERE in Romans but my passages!! Rom 11:25-27; 13:11-13; 16:20 does not answer Rom 3:19-26; 8:1-14; 33-34 PAST judgment argument. Desperate times call for desperate measures eh Don? You hint at the argument above for the FIRST time since our exchanges began Dec 17! Pat on the back. But not so quick. You agreed that justification is the verdict of the judgment, but DO NOT DEMONSTRATE how my implication argument is wrong. You just agree that I am correct to make the connection between the doctrine of justification & the judgment. But no refutation how a PAST judgment can work in Paul's framework.
Joel Sexton Think "Meathead" Miano put up a better fight. And that's REAL bad!
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton So, you are claiming then that Romans 3 / 8 / speaks of a different judgment, a different salvation???? Is that actually your argument?
Well, I gotta post my video for the day and leave for the day. Taking the wife back to the Cancer Treatment Center for her regular check up.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston Rom 3/8 is justification with the judgment as a part of how it plays out. The gospel. Hope all goes well for your wife
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton You did not answer the question. Is the salvation of 3-8 and that of Romans 11-13 the same or different?
Thanks, gotta run.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston, you demand I answer you went you have yet to directly interact with the implications of your PAST judgment. Get it through your head. I'm not one of the many half baked drones who aimlessly wander around your red herrings while forgetting the fact that they raised an argument you haven't touched. Get it through, or I will like you just threaten the discussion\s over
Jan 11/19
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton You objected to me introducing Romans 11-13, but did not show why that is wrong. So, once again, Is the judgment of Romans 2-8 a different judgment from that in chapter 11-13-- yes or no?
And if your answer is yes, then please, once again, address the following:
I believe that justification is an objective reality, fully established through the cross, consummated at the parousia, and that when a person comes into Christ they enter that completed work.
In Romans, Paul was bringing justification from the future judgment into their present, and then assuring them that the future judgment was at hand:
The God of peace-- that is the God of peace between man and God-- justification, redemption, etc., shall crush Satan under your feet shortly."
Did he do that, Joel Sexton?
"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy."
He said their salvation was nearer then than when they first believed. That was the salvation to be brought at the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:25f. If not, why not.
Paul said they knew that the night was far spent and that "The Day has drawn near."
He told them to live righteously-- "as in the Day"-- that meant that they would be expected to live righteously-- to live lives of justification when and after the Day came.
Joel Sexton, why are you now denying all of this? Every bit of this goes to the heart of the issue, and yet, you continue to ignore it, claiming I am the one running from the issues. Not true.
If your answer is NO, please demonstrate exegetically that they are different.
The reality is that you know they are the same. But, it appears you have -lamentably- decided to simply ignore what Paul said about when that judgment was to occur. Why is that, my friend?
William Bell, Daniel Rogers, Julienne Chambers, Roy Runyon, Steve Baisden, Holger Neubauer, Michael Miano,
COMMENT ON MY FB PAGE
Don K. Preston Let every one take careful note that although I asked Joel Sexton questions-- totally relevant questions about when the judgment was to come, he refused-- and as of this moment, still refuses-- to say even one word in response.
MY RESPONSE
Desperate, Deceptive & Dishonest Don K. Preston. REVERSE THE CHARGES!
This is how deceptive and dishonest of a person you are Don when cornered. I warned Aaron Tyler before our informal debate here got started to watch Don's red herring's and STICK to your argument that is on the table no matter what!
And that is exactly what I have done since our debate/discussion got started Dec 17th. Right from the get-go, it was apparent to me, and I knew this would be the case, that you had NO CLUE to the Pauline and the thematic doctrine of the book of Romans. Justification. Being a COC Cult minister for years I knew you wouldn't and STILL don't have a clue.
Don's Diversion's, Obfuscations, Evasiveness & Red Herring's
Right from the get, Don ran to Rev 22 and the city gates being open etc. First. This is has NOTHING to do with the narrowly-focused argument found in Paul [Rom 3:19-26; 8:1-4, 33-34 etc.] Don keeps going on asking me when was the judgment when was this. As in my O.P. that got our little discussion going, I made the remark, and to Don about 20 times now that my argument can loosely be called "PAST Judgment Implication Argument." Right there in that title, it is pretty clear I am taken for GRANTED that Don and other Hyper-Preterist's see the judgment in A.D. 70. Hence, the implications of that PAST judgment!
It doesn't matter if one puts the judgment in A.D. 70, 1844 or even 1914. For justification (dikiaoo) to work (which in itself is a forensic, legal judgment term) for Paul, there has to be a FUTURE JUDGMENT VERDICT of "not guilty, declared righteous" brought into the here and now for sinner's to be justified and receive the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. WITHOUT a future judgment, there is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SINNER'S TODAY!
And this is my main implication argument. The one Desperate Don responded to. But he quickly realized he was in over his head as HE WON'T DEAL HEAD ON with my argument! But demands I answer this I answer that. Even asking me if I believe in apostolic succession! Yes, he asked me that during our debate and when I answered no and why Don stated "rabbit trail." Huh? Really Donny boy? You ask me about a totally unrelated question, then when I answer you accuse me of going down "rabbit trails"
I'll say it right now. Don is purely a dishonest man. This is his modus operandi. Pretend to answer your argument, then throws down red herrings and 100 questions. As of yet, he hasn't dealt with how a PAST judgment can work within the Pauline text and framework. And this full debate is documented in Barry's group in the file section and on my wall and blog for ALL to see.
Here's a telling quote from Don which just shows how seriously he has no clue about justification or the argument. Watch. From Jan 11:
"In Romans, Paul was bringing justification from the future judgment into their present, and then assuring them that the future judgment was at hand:
For the first time, Don actually touches the implication argument ever so gingerly but to really prove my point big time! Don thinks it's great that the judgment that is tied into justification was "at hand" and came in .A.D 70, without realizing now there is no more justification, i.e. salvation for sinner's today. But Don argues that full salvation came in A.D. 70 at the judgment. If so, maybe for those UP UNTIL A.D.70, but not for those POST A.D. 70! Again, without a future judgment, there can be no verdict today for sinners in being justified and believing the gospel. Don UNKNOWLINGLY admits this! Amazing how some brilliant people can at the same time be dumber than a bag of hammers.
Jan 15/19
Joel Sexton shared a link.
17 hrs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-I23WZu4KA
YOUTUBE.COM
Full Preterist "Kingpin" Don K. Preston Pulls Out Of Our Debate. And Why He Is Not A Christian
Debate With Don K. Preston On Past Judgment…
Don K. Preston Joel, why do you say that I pulled out? Provide the quote. I said that if you are not going to accept the Biblical testimony that there is not much use continuing, but, guess what? I have not finished providing that testimony. It appears that you just wanted some "bragging rights" to boast of. Very premature and immature.
I will be posting something for you even this morning.
Joel Sexton You threatened to pull out in our second last exchange. You haven't dealt head-on with the implication argument. You obfuscate, evade and give silly red herrings. Check out the video below Don K. Preston. I;ll tag you
Joel Sexton You must have "crammed" over the weekend on what justification is did you?
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton Of course I dealt with it.
You said that if the Lord has come there is no justification.
Your "implication" argument is based on a false premise.
You did not prove that there is supposed to be no continuing justification after the Day of the Lord. For your "implication argument" to be true,. you must prove that the Bible teaches no more justification after the end. You made the claim but offer us no proof, just your claim.
I responded that numerous passages prove that justification, evangelism would continue after the Day of the Lord.
I demonstrated that if the Lord has not come that we do not have salvation- Hebrews 9:28-- which you have totally ignored-- especially when I noted that that coming was to be in a "very, very little while, and will not delay,." Total silence from you.
Joel Sexton And the reason I said you pulled out is that usually, I would have heard from you by now. Responding to other's, with your previous threat, I took it you realized your fatal admissions
Don K. Preston Joel Sexton I made no fatal admissions. You jumped to false conclusions based on your false premises.
And once again, you put me on your time line, which I am under no obligation to follow. Sorry.
Joel Sexton Don K. Preston Paul as YOU agreed frames justification with the judgment verdict brought into the here and now into the sinner's life. The future verdict of justification (dikiaoo) "to declared righteous, not guilty etc." Once the judgment happens, as you stated full salvation comes. Thus, no need for justification. Paul has the judgment as the final day in his argument, and even in Romans as a whole
Joel Sexton I posted in Barry's group where you are every weekday morning taking on every Tom, Dick & Harry that even mentions your name in a tag. Defend the pride. I posted, natta, that with your previous threats I thought you threw in the towel. Now you are saving face
Joel Sexton Don't forget Dishonest Don. You admitted TWICE that my basic premise was correct which I show in the video I tagged you in below. You agreed with your favorite quotable scholar Wright, and Mounce on Rom 8:33-34 and hinted in our last exchange that yes justification is bringing the future judgment verdict into the sinner's life. Fatal
Joel Sexton And of course, you are a dishonest man in your tactics. And after 3 weeks of me sticking to my guns and not going to follow your red herrings, you threaten to take the ball and bat home.
Joel Sexton Run Donnie boy
Joel Sexton Give me some more red herrings to sniff out
The End Of The Line. A Month Later & Don K. Preston Doesn't Know What He's Debating!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R66c4-PmO_E&lc=z22dennp2ne5erruvacdp43bzkvrqdhebbl3aiux5t1w03c010c
Highlighted comment
MrDonPreston
24 minutes ago
For any implication argument to be valid, one has to demonstrate that the doctrine that your implication argument is based on is true.
Joel must prove-- and has not tried-- to prove that the Bible teaches that there is no justification after the Day of the Lord. This is the foundational error here. What scripture does he give as proof? His assumptions, but no proof!
Second, I have asked Joel numerous times to explain when the Day of the Lord was to be-- totally ignored. He totally ignores the imminence of the Day in Romans 8 which is one of his key texts.
I have shown that the Bible teaches that there is justification after the Day. Sexton claims that is a Red Herring Argument. No, if it is proven that there is justification after the end-- which is easily proven-- then Joel's entire argument falls to the ground. Joel appeals to "the judgment" That is great! Well, Peter said that "the time" - "the judgment" the judgment of the living and the dead" had arrived! Joel, do you agree!
Funny that Joel claims that I made a fatal admission by saying that Paul does look to the future judgment. But that is not fatal at all! That is my argument! Justification was to occur at the judgment. The judgment was near. Therefore, justification-- not forensic, but objective-- was near. Once again, Joel's "implication argument" is specious.
If the judgment has not occurred, there is no salvation today.
MY RESPONSE
Dishonest Don is at it again. First he assert's, "Joel must prove-- and has not tried-- to prove that the Bible teaches that there is no justification after the Day of the Lord. This is the foundational error here. What scripture does he give as proof? His assumptions, but no proof!
Hmmm. What is Rom 3:19-26; 8:33-34 Don? A FUTURE verdict from the FUTURE judgment is how Paul frames the doctrine of justification! You cannot now go to Rom 3:19-26; 8:33-34 and say, well we need to change things a bit. No! If the judgment is in the PAST, and not in the FUTURE, for Paul there is no justification. Unprofessional and dishonest Don.
This right here PROVES what I stated in the video. Don doesn't even know what the heck he is debating. My argument is "PAST Judgment Implication." I take it for granted that Don believes the Judgment/Parousia took place in A.D. 70. It is part of my argument! Don wants to assert that, it only CRIPPLES his position, as only a FUTURE judgment can work in the act of justification. So he can give the 101 time-texts till the cows come home.
All this means is full salvation came Don said, ok then, for those up until A.D. 70. But the argument that is on the table, is what Don is purposely ignoring of doesn't understand. I am not surprised though as the doctrine of justification is something that Don has no grasp on.
This right here PROVES what I stated in the video. Don doesn't even know what the heck he is debating. My argument is "PAST Judgment Implication." I take it for granted that Don believes the Judgment/Parousia took place in A.D. 70. It is part of my argument! Don wants to assert that, it only CRIPPLES his position, as only a FUTURE judgment can work in the act of justification. So he can give the 101 time-texts till the cows come home.
All this means is full salvation came Don said, ok then, for those up until A.D. 70. But the argument that is on the table, is what Don is purposely ignoring of doesn't understand. I am not surprised though as the doctrine of justification is something that Don has no grasp on.
And Don you did admit that Wright, Mounce were correct on their exegesis of Rom 8:33-34 which is the last judgment verdict is brought into the here and now in the act of justification.
Now watch. You MUST CATCH THE POWER OF THIS! Don states, "Justification was to occur at the judgment." This is HUGE.
This is NOT Paul's framework! We are justified NOW, not in the future lol. This ladies and gentlemen shows beyond all doubt that I wasted almost a month debating Don and he still doesn't understand the Pauline doctrine of justification. We are not justified at the judgment. (Remeber Wright & Mounce Don???)
It is the FUTURE verdict of "not guilty, pronounced, declared righteous" brought into the HERE and NOW into the believing sinner's life. Don even says justification is "not forensic" What? Go to whatever lexicon you want Don. Justify/Justified (dikiaoo) is a forensic, legal, courtroom term. Rome tries to do the same thing, but even their scholar's admit the meaning is not to MAKE righteous interally, but to DECLARE righteous EXTERNAL to the person. They are imputed the righteousness of Christ which are external to them.
So. After 35 pages and a month of debating this issue we see Don STILL and amazingly has no clue on what Paul is saying in the two main passages I appealed to. What is the point of going on if after this long Don can't see my argument or Paul at all. This is amazing to say the least. He misunderstands my argument completely. Justification was to occur at the judgment he assert's. I'll stick with Paul and the Greek text over an "accursed" gospel promoter [Gal 1:6-9 cf. 2:11-5:4]
