The Contextual definition of Faith in Romans 4:16-23

[Thinkingstuff]

DHK, what are your view of works? I really wonder because the more I listen to you guys the more I'm under the impression that you believe Christians should avoid works all together and not even in any respect combine faith and works. I don't believe that is what scripture tells us. In fact, I know that you guys hold all the Early Church Fathers were heretics but I believe them to be a witness (not authoritative or inspired like scriptures) to what Christians believed and thought about during their time. Like for instance Justin Martyr who lived between 100 AD and 165 so was at the very early stages of Christianity just after the Apostles and this is what he said on the subject.

And let those who are not found living as He taught, be understood to be no Christians, even though they profess with the lip the precepts of Christ; for not those who make profession, but those who do the works, shall be saved, according to His word: “Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. For whosoever hears Me, and does My sayings, hears Him that sent Me. And many will say unto Me, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Your name, and done wonders? And then will I say unto them, Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. Then shall there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when the righteous shall shine as the sun, and the wicked are sent into everlasting fire. For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep's clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works you shall know them. And every tree that brings not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.”

And if this is the early thought of Christians how far have we traveled? What are your thoughts on what he has said? Agree? Disagree? What?

 

[Yeshua1]

DHK, what are your view of works? I really wonder because the more I listen to you guys the more I'm under the impression that you believe Christians should avoid works all together and not even in any respect combine faith and works. I don't believe that is what scripture tells us. In fact, I know that you guys hold all the Early Church Fathers were heretics but I believe them to be a witness (not authoritative or inspired like scriptures) to what Christians believed and thought about during their time. Like for instance Justin Martyr who lived between 100 AD and 165 so was at the very early stages of Christianity just after the Apostles and this is what he said on the subject. And if this is the early thought of Christians how far have we traveled? What are your thoughts on what he has said? Agree? Disagree? What?

NOT DHK, but the Bible states that we saved by god UNTO good works that he has determined beforehand so that we might walk in them and bring glory to His name!

NONE deny doing good, obeying what the Bible states to do, its just thaey are what we will do AFTER being justified by faith in Lord jesus, NOT as process of getting or keeping saved!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

NOT DHK, but the Bible states that we saved by god UNTO good works that he has determined beforehand so that we might walk in them and bring glory to His name!

Exactly we are saved to do good works avoid good works and you must wonder if you are saved. That is the Catholic Position.

NONE deny doing good, obeying what the Bible states to do

Good then we must agree.

its just thaey are what we will do AFTER being justified by faith in Lord jesus, NOT as process of getting or keeping saved!

You have to will to do them. Good works that is. However, the more you obey God then the more you recieve him. The less you obey God you seperate yourself from him. Therefore you must abide in him for him to abide in you. Stop abiding and doing the things he taught us then you stop being a Christian.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Look at what Justin Martyr said in the quote seeing as he was closer to the Apostles than you or I. And this is what the early Christians thought.

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly we are saved to do good works avoid good works and you must wonder if you are saved. That is the Catholic Position.

Good then we must agree.
You have to will to do them. Good works that is. However, the more you obey God then the more you recieve him. The less you obey God you seperate yourself from him. Therefore you must abide in him for him to abide in you. Stop abiding and doing the things he taught us then you stop being a Christian.
Look at what Justin Martyr said in the quote seeing as he was closer to the Apostles than you or I. And this is what the early Christians thought.

again, good works have NOTHING to do with mu justification before God, as my faith ALONE in Jesus as my saviour alone saved me forever more, and amy good works done after saved part of my sacntification!

You work to get saved, I work because i am saved!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

again, good works have NOTHING to do with mu justification before God, as my faith ALONE in Jesus as my saviour alone saved me forever more, and amy good works done after saved part of my sacntification!

Sorry your position isn't scriptural. Faith must produce works for it to be faith otherwise no faith. Just an intellectual assent. Show me one verse that says that you must be "saved by faith alone". No verse says that in fact the closest verse you can find actually says "you are not saved by faith alone"

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24

You work to get saved, I work because i am saved!

You didn't read the canon from the council of Trent that I showed you. Because it shows your argument to be a non sequitur

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry your position isn't scriptural. Faith must produce works for it to be faith otherwise no faith. Just an intellectual assent. Show me one verse that says that you must be "saved by faith alone". No verse says that in fact the closest verse you can find actually says "you are not saved by faith alone"

You didn't read the canon from the council of Trent that I showed you. Because it shows your argument to be a non sequitur

there are NO verses that state a sinner can do ANYTHING else BUT palce faith in jesus as messiah, saviour, and by faith, receiving by God the justification provided for by/in death of jesus!

Do you hold thast one MUST co operate with God in the sacraments such as water baptism/mass etc in order to get saved?

Do you hold that the mass IS a propiation to God each time it is enacted/taken?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

there are NO verses that state a sinner can do ANYTHING else BUT palce faith in jesus as messiah, saviour, and by faith, receiving by God the justification provided for by/in death of jesus!

And see this is where your argument goes wrong. No one is suggesting that you need to do something other than have faith in Jesus. What is being said that that faith needs to be revealed in obedience. You need to actually turn away from your sin and work towards Holiness.

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Do you hold thast one MUST co operate with God in the sacraments such as water baptism/mass etc in order to get saved?

You must cooperate with God! If God says to you Go down to second street and knocked at door number 3352 and you will get your free gift. Then pray tell what would you do? I'm certain you would go down to 2nd Street and knock at door 3352. Is that a works based salvation? No its just showing your faith that God has something for you if you do what he said. But that's not what God said. He said repent and be baptized.

Do you hold that the mass IS a propiation to God each time it is enacted/taken?

Again you must answer what you think that means.

 

[Yeshua1]

And see this is where your argument goes wrong. No one is suggesting that you need to do something other than have faith in Jesus. What is being said that that faith needs to be revealed in obedience. You need to actually turn away from your sin and work towards Holiness.

Again, after I am already saved/justified, and that is progressive, as will keep maturing into image of Christ daily...

Thank God there are no sins i will ever commit that will make melose my salvation, but definitly want to keep my walking as the lord wants, in order to avoid chaistisment and get the best that he has in mind for me!

You must cooperate with God! If God says to you Go down to second street and knocked at door number 3352 and you will get your free gift. Then pray tell what would you do? I'm certain you would go down to 2nd Street and knock at door 3352. Is that a works based salvation? No its just showing your faith that God has something for you if you do what he said. But that's not what God said. He said repent and be baptized.

AFTER he said, believe on the Lord jesus, and you SHALL be saved! baptism after that justification, symbolic of what has already be done by god, in saving me when I placed faith in jesus! That is ONLY thing God requires, place faith in jesus!

Again you must answer what you think that means.

that the death of jesus gets re enacted each time mass is done! fresh sacrificing to God for payment of mysins, and when you eat jesus, you gain "brownie grace points!"

 

[The Biblicist]

A. The justification event in Abraham's life was a completed point of action at the point of faith.

Proof for this is:

1. Aorist tense "believed" - v. 3

2. The Aorist tense "had" - v. 11

3. The Aorist and perfect tenses in Romans 5:1-2


B. Justication was contemperaneous with believing in the life of Abraham.

Proof for this is:

1. The term "justifieth" and "believeth" are both presnt tense in verse 5 showing contemporary/identical action.

2. Justification is explicitly said to be "by faith" - Rom. 3:28 "justified by faith"

3. The future tense is used for justification in connection with faith - Rom. 3:30 "shall justify.....by faith"

Both the present and future tense prove that justification in this context was not something prior to the conversion experience of Abraham - that is indisputable grammar.

Justification before God is "without works" but regeneration is not without works (Eph. 2:10) and there is no such person who is justified that has not also be regenerated.

Paul is talking about the point of justificaiton of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) while James is talking about the person already RECEIVED into the congregation (James 2:1-10) and is "one of you" (James 2:16) who has not merely made a profession of faith previously before the congregation but one who has claimed to be regenerated (James 1:18).

The difference between Paul and James is the difference between judicial justification (Rom. 4:5-6) and evidential justification (James 2:16). James is providing an evidence based approach to Justification while Paul is providing a theological approach to justification. James is speaking of justification observed by men ("shew me......shew you....do you see..) while Paul is speaking of justification "before God."

Paul is theologically distinguishing between justification (Rom. 3:24-5:2) and regeneration (Rom 6-8) while James is not making any theological distinction between justification and regeneration but is viewing the pragmatic evidence of that profession in relationship with others members who are in some kind of need.

Catholics and other works for salvation want to ignore these contextual indicators of the pragmatic approach of James to those already received as "one of you" and they completely refuse to deal fairly with the clear theological distinctions Paul makes in Romans 3:24-5:2 concerning "the ungodly" because they must maintain their sacramental salvation theory which Paul completely repudiates.

My exposition above completely dismantles Rome's false interpretation of Romans. They will scoff at it but they cannot provide any contextual based response that will stand up to the contextual evidences. That is precisely why TS will not engage me in the immediate context of Romans 3:24-5:2. Instead he flees the context to an external concept of "the faith" and tries to read it back into Romans 3:24-5:2. Complete failure to distinguish between different uses of "faith" in the book of Romans (e.g. Rom. 4:21; 12:3,6; 14:20-21). TS has to change the contextual definition of "faith" in Romans 3:24-5:2 which is spelled out in Romans 4:21 and completely different than his use of "the faith" which refers to the apostolic body of faith and practice.

 

[The Biblicist]

that the death of jesus gets re enacted each time mass is done! fresh sacrificing to God for payment of mysins, and when you eat jesus, you gain "brownie grace points!"

TS thinks it is the "godly" who are justified by their own faithfulness which is God's righteousness imparted to them though sacraments.

However, it is the "UNGODLY" Paul says that are justified by the righteousness of God which is the object of faith and is imputed to the "ungodly" by faith (Rom. 3:24-28; 4:5). The ungodly" are "ungodly" when it comes to their own personal works and that is precisely why righteousness must be imputed because "the ungodly" are "without works."

Abiding in Christ has to do with EXPERIENTIAL salvation here and now in fruit productivity not entrance into heaven. It has to do with temporal consequences both good and bad here and now. If we abide in Christ we EXPERIENCE joy, peace, answered prayers, and the love of God in addition to production of fruit here and now. Likewise, if we do not abide in him we EXPERIENCE here an now the loss of these same things in addition our testimony is condemned by men.,

In contrast, being "in Christ" in regard to spiritual union is not something we can determine but it is a CREATIVE act of God (Eph. 2:10). Experiential union is something we can determine (Jn. 15) but spiritual union is something we have no power to control whatsoever.

 

[The Biblicist]

Those who pervert the gospel of Christ must interpret "faith" and "believing" in Romans 4 to mean "faithfulness" or personal commandment keeping obedience. They must do this in order to support the idea that their idea of "imputeth" refers to the "righteousness" of Abrahams own life of obedience rather than to the object of His faith - the righteousness of God through the promised provision in Christ.

They can be fairly successful in making their case that "faith" or "believing" means "faithfulness" as long as they are allowed to ISOLATE these terms from the other descriptive factors found in the text. When the other descriptive factors found in text are considered such an interpretation is intellectually dishonest and seen for what it is - pervertion of the term in its context.

For example, Romans 4:5-6 and the other descriptives in this text make it intellectually impossible to accept the term "believeth" to mean "faithfulness" or personal obedience.

1. "believeth" is placed in contrast to works - "worketh not BUT beleiveth" and "without works"

The "works" being discussed in Romans 4:1-6 are the "works" that characterized the life of Abraham BEFORE he either believed (v. 3) and BEFORE he was circumcised (vv. 9-11). There was no Mosaic ceremonialism in existence at the point in time he believed. There were no Jews. Hence, the term "works" can only refer to his own personal attempts to do what he thought might appease his gods (he was an idol worshipper).


2. "believeth" modifies "the ungodly."


3. The Grammatical modifiers of "the ungodly" ("worketh.....believeth....justifieth.....imputeth")

All four verbs (1) "worketh"; (2) "beleiveth"; (3) "justifieth"; (4) imputeth all have the "eth" suffix ending demonstrating from the English view point they are all present tense and identical action.

Abraham "believed" (v. 3 - Aorist tense) and was righteousness was "counted" (v. 3 Aorist) as a completed action at a point in time when he believed that preceded being circumcised (v. 11 "had"). At that point in time all four of these present tense verbs were simeltaneous modifiers of his described personal condition as "ungodly."

a. "Worketh not" - is a simeltaneous action with believeth, justifieth and impueth that modifies "the ungodly" that denies works are involved in any of those actions.

b. "believeth" - is a simeltaneous action with "justifieth" and "imputeth" that modifes "the ungodly" showing they are inseparable actions.

That means grammatically, Justification, imputation all occur at the same time as believing and all three modify a person who is "ungodly" when this occurs. In verse 3 it occurs at specific point in time ("believed" - Aorist tense) BEFORE Abraham was circumcised (v. 11 "had").

The grammatical point here is that the PERSONAL CONDITION of Abraham at the point he believed is described as "ungodly" and that is precisely why justification by faith is "without works" because he is "ungodly" at the point of faith in regard to his own PERSONAL CONDITION.

These facts completely destroy the idea that imputation or counting here refers to Abraham's own righteousness or faithfulness. If that were true, he could NOT be called "ungodly" in connection with "imputeth" if it were his "faithfulness" that was in view. Neither, could he be denied "works" if faithfulness were in view if his own life of obedience were being counted or imputed as righteousness.

CONCLUSION: As long as the term "faith" or "believeth" is allowed to be ISOLATED from other contextual descriptives it can be perverted to mean "faithfulness" or the obedient personal life of the justified. However, when the other contextual descriptives are allowed into the conversation then it is clear that view is impossible.

His "faith" is imputed as righteousness due to the OBJECT of His faith or what His faith has RECEIVED or EMBRACED. The object of faith has previously been defined in Romans 3:24-26 and is again defined in Romans 3:21-25 in the context of justification. What is embraced by Faith is God and His provision of righteousness found in the Person and work of Jesus Christ as promised in the gospel and obtained by the power of God.

These facts also repudiate the idea that "faith" refers to "faithfulness" which is being

At conversion a true child of God is both regenerated and justified. When they are received into membership they are received upon a professing of faith and baptism (Acts 2:40). This is all OBSERVATIONAL from the persepective of the congregation receiving them. James 2:1-10 refers to the congregational meeting and observational problems in the actual assembly. James 2:11-31 also deals with OBSERVATIONAL problems that conflict with the OBSERVED profession of those received into the congregation. James is dealing with stated problems of EVIDENTIAL profession of faith in relationship with other members in the same congregation "though a man may SAY....shew me....shew you......see....).

James is demanding a profession that is accompanied by evidential SPIRITUAL life. James is approaching it the very same way that Paul approaches it in Romans 6-8 where Paul begins by denying that the justified person can live in sin. Paul's argument against a justified person living in sin is not based merely upon the doctrine of justification by faith wherein we have judicially DIED to sin with Christ as visualized in the act of burial in baptism but we have also RISEN with regenerative life with Christ as also visualized in the act of baptism (Rom. 6:1-7). Just as in the visible expressioon of salvation (baptism) there is both a death and life so in the conversion of every true believer there is both justification and regeneration and NEVER can there be one without the other but yet without confusing one with the other as do Catholics and all sacramentalists confuse them.

Paul's argument in Romans 6-8 is the same argument of James 2 - there is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man even though justification is without works (Rom. 4:5-6) while regeneration is unto "good works" (Eph. 2:10). Hence, the OBSERVATIONAL justification of any profession is "good works" which give EVIDENCE of regenerative life, thus vindicating the profession of faith as valid.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

In short, what is in view and what is defined as "faith" or "believing" in Romans 3:24-5:2 is not what Abraham can do ("the faith" apostolic doctrine and practice) but what Abraham CANNOT DO but must TRUST in God to do alone without his aide or assistance.

Here is the contextual definition of justifying "faith" or "believing" as used by Paul in Romans 3:24-5:2.

Romans 4:16 introduces the topic of faith - "It is of faith that it might be by grace."

Romans 4:17-22 introduces the illustration from Abraham's life to define the nature of justifying faith. Faith is the substance of things HOPED for and in Romans 4:21 Paul provides the substance of Abraham's hope. It was his full persuasion that what God promised God was able to perform and provide. His faith was in God and in God's promise with full and complete dependance upon God's power to perform what was promised.

Hence, this is not "the faith" or the doctrine and practice of the Apostles Paul has in view but the personal trust in God doing what Abraham CANNOT DO that is in veiw.

At conversion a true child of God is both regenerated and justified. When they are received into membership they are received upon a professing of faith and baptism (Acts 2:40). This is all OBSERVATIONAL from the persepective of the congregation receiving them. James 2:1-10 refers to the congregational meeting and observational problems in the actual assembly. James 2:11-31 also deals with OBSERVATIONAL problems that conflict with the OBSERVED profession of those received into the congregation. James is dealing with stated problems of EVIDENTIAL profession of faith in relationship with other members in the same congregation "though a man may SAY....shew me....shew you......see....).

James is demanding a profession that is accompanied by evidential SPIRITUAL life. James is approaching it the very same way that Paul approaches it in Romans 6-8 where Paul begins by denying that the justified person can live in sin. Paul's argument against a justified person living in sin is not based merely upon the doctrine of justification by faith wherein we have judicially DIED to sin with Christ as visualized in the act of burial in baptism but we have also RISEN with regenerative life with Christ as also visualized in the act of baptism (Rom. 6:1-7). Just as in the visible expressioon of salvation (baptism) there is both a death and life so in the conversion of every true believer there is both justification and regeneration and NEVER can there be one without the other but yet without confusing one with the other as do Catholics and all sacramentalists confuse them.

Paul's argument in Romans 6-8 is the same argument of James 2 - there is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man even though justification is without works (Rom. 4:5-6) while regeneration is unto "good works" (Eph. 2:10). Hence, the OBSERVATIONAL justification of any profession is "good works" which give EVIDENCE of regenerative life, thus vindicating the profession of faith as valid.

 

[Yeshua1]

TS thinks it is the "godly" who are justified by their own faithfulness which is God's righteousness imparted to them though sacraments.

However, it is the "UNGODLY" Paul says that are justified by the righteousness of God which is the object of faith and is imputed to the "ungodly" by faith (Rom. 3:24-28; 4:5). The ungodly" are "ungodly" when it comes to their own personal works and that is precisely why righteousness must be imputed because "the ungodly" are "without works."

Abiding in Christ has to do with EXPERIENTIAL salvation here and now in fruit productivity not entrance into heaven. It has to do with temporal consequences both good and bad here and now. If we abide in Christ we EXPERIENCE joy, peace, answered prayers, and the love of God in addition to production of fruit here and now. Likewise, if we do not abide in him we EXPERIENCE here an now the loss of these same things in addition our testimony is condemned by men.,

In contrast, being "in Christ" in regard to spiritual union is not something we can determine but it is a CREATIVE act of God (Eph. 2:10). Experiential union is something we can determine (Jn. 15) but spiritual union is something we have no power to control whatsoever.

So catholics would basically have the view that God cannot/will not declare a sinner as rightous, but give sacramental graces that enable the sinner when co operating with God in the process, to be able to get to the state when God can actual call them justified, as the grace imparted has made them such?

Once they have helped God to make them like jesus enough, can than be justified freely by God?

 

[The Biblicist]

So catholics would basically have the view that God cannot/will not declare a sinner as rightous, but give sacramental graces that enable the sinner when co operating with God in the process, to be able to get to the state when God can actual call them justified, as the grace imparted has made them such?

Once they have helped God to make them like jesus enough, can than be justified freely by God?

They will pick your words apart BUT that is precisely what they believe!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

that the death of jesus gets re enacted each time mass is done! fresh sacrificing to God for payment of mysins, and when you eat jesus, you gain "brownie grace points!"

Ah... You jump all around salvation first you ask me about before you get saved then jump to after you are converted. Yes no sin even after I believe, repent and am baptized can keep me from God as long as I repent of it, which means turn totally away from it and do it no more.

As far as Mass you still haven't answered the question, do you think it means to re-sacrifice Jesus at every mass or not?

 

[The Biblicist]

turn totally away from it and do it no more.]

So you have only lied ONE TIME in your entire life and if you ever lie again you are eternally lost??????? Or did you really repent according to your definition of repentance above - "do it NO MORE"

As far as Mass you still haven't answered the question, do you think it means to re-sacrifice Jesus at every mass or not?

We all know the mental gymnastics used by Rome to deny it is a re-sacrifice (but that is exactly what it is) by inserting the term "memorial" but when the continuing speaking of it they drop the term "memorial" and call it what it is:

"In the Eucharist SACRIFICE..." - #1359 CCC
"The Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE of thankgiving....." - 1360 CCC
"The Eucharist IS also a SACRIFICE of praise...." - 1361 CCC

If the Mass was merely a memorial there would be no LITERAL transformation of the materials into the actual blood and flesh of Christ.

Rome must resort to Greek philosophy in order to explain away its hocus pocus transubstantiation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you have only lied ONE TIME in your entire life and if you ever lie again you are eternally lost??????? Or did you really repent according to your definition of repentance above - "do it NO MORE"

Some early christians thought that as we can see from the writings of the Shepherd of Hermas. However, no sin is forgiven as long as you turn away from it and some sins you must practice turning away form it.

We all know the mental gymnastics used by Rome to deny it is a re-sacrifice (but that is exactly what it is) by inserting the term "memorial" but when the continuing speaking of it they drop the term "memorial" and call it what it is:

"In the Eucharist SACRIFICE..." - #1359 CCC
"The Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE of thankgiving....." - 1360 CCC
"The Eucharist IS also a SACRIFICE of praise...." - 1361 CCC

If the Mass was merely a memorial there would be no LITERAL transformation of the materials into the actual blood and flesh of Christ.

Christians have always held that communion was the transformation of bread into the body of Christ and in Colosians Paul says you must distinguish that it is the body or you are eating to your own condemnation. It is not a re-sacrifice. It (like passover is for the Jews) is a commemoration or a making present right now, which is what the greek version of that word means, that same sacrifice on Calvary. In John Jesus shows he can turn one thing into another when he transforms water into wine. So it is nothing that he can make something his body and blood. We know early christians held to this view of communion because Justin Martyr said

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone.

signifying an actual change of substance. and he lived between 100-165 AD.

 

[The Biblicist]

Some early christians thought that as we can see from the writings of the Shepherd of Hermas. However, no sin is forgiven as long as you turn away from it and some sins you must practice turning away form it.

Amusing! So according to Tradition both are true and so one cancels out the other and Rome has found another way to be oxymoronic. Have you ever read the written traditions of the Jews? Rome responds to a problem exactly as the Pharisees of Christ's day - "rabbi........says but rabbi......says this"

Christians have always held that communion was the transformation of bread into the body of Christ

That is simply a flat lie - none of the apostles or early apostolic churches believed such a doctrine - none!

and in Colosians Paul says you must distinguish that it is the body or you are eating to your own condemnation.

I think you might be referring to 1 Corinthians 11 rather than Colossians. But that verse teaches the very opposite of what Rome teaches. The discernment has to do with the TYPOLOGY not any transformation of the substance.

It (like passover is for the Jews)

Exactly! The Jews beleived it was salvic actually remitting sins when it could NEVER REMIT SINS (Heb. 10:1-4). Moreover, the Jews failed to comprehend that Christ and the cross REPLACED/FULFILLED the passover and any continuance of the passover is a rejection of the cross (heb. 10:5-17). Rome is continuing the same JEWISH ERROR and with the same JEWISH PREISTHOOD concept that has been completely abolished.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Amusing! So according to Tradition both are true and so one cancels out the other and Rome has found another way to be oxymoronic.

Thats not what I said I said some early christians thought this. The tradition is that all sins are forgiven if you truelly repent of them even if its many times as you must continue to turn from sin. It is clear from this statement you have no idea how Tradition works.

Have you ever read the written traditions of the Jews? Rome responds to a problem exactly as the Pharisees of Christ's day - "rabbi........says but rabbi......says this"

Actually, I have and that is not what I said. Though you are right about the Jews.

That is simply a flat lie - none of the apostles or early apostolic churches believed such a doctrine - none!

Every one of them did. You just refuse to believe the scriptures themselves

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day

I think you might be referring to 1 Corinthians 11 rather than Colossians. But that verse teaches the very opposite of what Rome teaches. The discernment has to do with the TYPOLOGY not any transformation of the substance.

It certainly doesn't typology doesn't make one guilty of the body an blood of Christ. Only an actual offence against the actual body and blood. That is why we don't put people in prison or life or give them the death penalty for burning a politician in effigy. You're right about the book. 1 Cor. 11:29-30. Thanks for the correction. Senior moment.

Exactly! The Jews beleived it was salvic actually remitting sins when it could NEVER REMIT SINS (Heb. 10:1-4).

What the OT foreshadows is made real in the NT. Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself.

Moreover, the Jews failed to comprehend that Christ and the cross REPLACED/FULFILLED the passover

No, they didn't and they didn't believe his replaced and actually fulfilled passover in his actual body.

 

[The Biblicist]

Thats not what I said I said some early christians thought this

It makes no difference what you think! You have TWO conflicting teachings from your authority of "Sacred Traditions." That clearly demonstrates "Sacred Tradition" is no more reliable than Jewis Traditions and that is precisely why neither Christ or the Apostles quoted them as authority or as helps to interpret scriptures.

The tradition is that all sins are forgiven if you truelly repent of them even if its many times as you must continue to turn from sin.

You defined repentance as doing that sin NO MORE! Now you claim one must only "continue to turn" from sin and that some sins need "practice" turning from them. Yes, I believe that and that is precisely what the Bible calls PROGRESSIVE sanctification or as one popular writers puts it "Three steps forward and two steps back."

Every one of them did. You just refuse to believe the scriptures themselves

I will take this challenge any time of the day - you just put up the scriptures you think teach that nonsense!

It certainly doesn't typology doesn't make one guilty of the body an blood of Christ.

It most certainly does. Remember Moses and hitting the literal rock? He messed up the typology of progressive sanctification and turned it into a repeated salvation by his actions (just as Rome does) and he was refused to enter the promised land in perfect keeping with the messed up typology. God takes typology serious as the whole point of typology is the correct actions to convey the correct truth! If the actions are wrong error is conveyed and if the type is salvation than a false salvation is conveyed. Open and known sin and sinner partaking the supper violates the type of the Lord's Supper. Open division and known heresies in the partaking assembly violate the symbolism of the "one" bread.

You're right about the book. 1 Cor. 11:29-30. Thanks for the correction. Senior moment.

Well, I can readily identify with a "senior moment" as I have had many.

What the OT foreshadows is made real in the NT. Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself.

You have stated the Romanist problem well!!!!!!! Jesus didn't symbolically sacrifice himself as the symbolism was in the OT passover and the FULFILLMENT is in the cross. What was forshadowed (Heb. 10:1-4) COULD NEVER REMIT SIN any more than the Lord's Supper can. What remits sin is the "real" and neither the passover or the supper are REAL but both EQUALLY symbols - one pointing forward to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY and one point back to the real WITHOUT REMISSION REALITY as the only REALITY FOR REMISSION is the REAL not either symbols.