Col. 1:19-22: Saved Through the Blood of the Cross

[asterisktom]

Many passages are so full of riches that it is helpful to just focus on a few verses. These four verses have foundational truth that is very much needed to set many Preterists back on the straight and narrow. Here we have, once again, essential saving doctrine. Not to believe these is to be outside of the faith.

Article linked below.

Col. 1:19-22: Saved Through the Blood of the Cross

“For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; t…

asterisktom.wordpress.com

 

[Deacon]

Colossians is rich in its declaration of the richness and sufficiency of Christ.

The ESV labels Colossians 1:15-23, The Preeminence of Christ.
The NIV titles the same verses, The Supremacy of the Son of God.
The NET gives the label The Supremacy of Christ to Colossians 1:15-20.
And The Incomparable Christ is the title the NASB gives to the whole of Colossians 1:13-29.

(I'm curious about why you choose vss. 19-22 rather than, say, 19-23).

The letter to the Colossians gives practical advice to believers;
It shouldn't be surprising that that early in the epistle, when Christ is praised, a connection is made to its application in a believer's life.

One doesn't need to be a Preterist to draw comfort and fortitude from this passage.

Rob

 

[Blank]

Many passages are so full of riches that it is helpful to just focus on a few verses. These four verses have foundational truth that is very much needed to set many Preterists back on the straight and narrow. Here we have, once again, essential saving doctrine. Not to believe these is to be outside of the faith.

Article linked below.

Col. 1:19-22: Saved Through the Blood of the Cross

“For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; t…

asterisktom.wordpress.com

I'm a bit confused, does this mean that preterism has strayed away from the essentials of the faith or is this supposed to be a refutation of preterism?
If it is the first, I fully agree, but it wouldn’t just apply to pretertists, but Christianity in general has strayed away from the essentials.

 

[kyredneck]

Colossians is rich in its declaration of the richness and sufficiency of Christ.

Yes! It is!

 

[Blank]

Colossians is rich in its declaration of the richness and sufficiency of Christ.

I'll add this one regarding our sufficiency in Christ...

Colossians 2:9 BSB
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm a bit confused, does this mean that preterism has strayed away from the essentials of the faith or is this supposed to be a refutation of preterism?
If it is the first, I fully agree, but it wouldn’t just apply to pretertists, but Christianity in general has strayed away from the essentials.

Preterism has been defined as heresy, at least the full blown version that claims second even already has happened

 

[Blank]

Preterism has been defined as heresy, at least the full blown version that claims second even already has happened

Yes, they must really have to stretch their mental imagination in order to come to that conclusion.
I just don't see where preterism is associated with not having 'essential saving doctrine' according to what the OP has written

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One doesn't need to be a Preterist to draw comfort and fortitude from this passage.

Exactly so.

 

[asterisktom]

I'm a bit confused, does this mean that preterism has strayed away from the essentials of the faith or is this supposed to be a refutation of preterism?
If it is the first, I fully agree, but it wouldn’t just apply to pretertists, but Christianity in general has strayed away from the essentials.

I was unclear on this. I am a Preterist. And I meant that *some* Preterists have gotten off track, specifically the Covenant Eschatology group headed by Don K. Preston and the Covenant Creationists.

 

[asterisktom]

Colossians is rich in its declaration of the richness and sufficiency of Christ.

The ESV labels Colossians 1:15-23, The Preeminence of Christ.
The NIV titles the same verses, The Supremacy of the Son of God.
The NET gives the label The Supremacy of Christ to Colossians 1:15-20.
And The Incomparable Christ is the title the NASB gives to the whole of Colossians 1:13-29.

(I'm curious about why you choose vss. 19-22 rather than, say, 19-23).

The letter to the Colossians gives practical advice to believers;
It shouldn't be surprising that that early in the epistle, when Christ is praised, a connection is made to its application in a believer's life.

One doesn't need to be a Preterist to draw comfort and fortitude from this passage.

Rob

I wrote this article first in a number of Preterist groups, to fellow Preterists. Too many are followers of the heretical notions of teachers like Don K. Preston and JL Vaughn, to name just two. For this reason so many are enamored with everything that has to do with AD 70 that they ignore sound doctrine. I probably should have tweaked my OP somehow to reflect the different readership here.

It goes without saying that one does not need to be a Preterist to blessed by these verses. And, as I wrote at the beginning, I had to draw the line somewhere as to what I quoted. I take the truth of the following verses for granted, of course, but wanted to focus on the actual intersect of Christology and soteriology. And, for that, the verses I chose were sufficient.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, they must really have to stretch their mental imagination in order to come to that conclusion.
I just don't see where preterism is associated with not having 'essential saving doctrine' according to what the OP has written

I challenge either one of you to show me from Scripture - not from mere creeds - where my belief in a 1st century Parousia is heretical.

 

[asterisktom]

Preterism has been defined as heresy, at least the full blown version that claims second even already has happened

Martin Luther's belief in justification by faith had also been defined as heresy. And I guess you know what his answer was.

 

[Blank]

I challenge either one of you to show me from Scripture - not from mere creeds - where my belief in a 1st century Parousia is heretical.

I don't believe I used the word 'heretical' or even the word 'parousia', I only said "I don't see where preterism is associated with not having 'essential saving doctrine". As a matter fact I don't see where preterism or any form of eschatology would be essential saving doctrine.

 

[Blank]

Martin Luther's belief in justification by faith had also been defined as heresy.

By who? By Rome? Or by the Eastern Orthodox Church? In their ECT statement, Rome agrees with justification by faith but they won't include the word 'alone'. The EOC is built on a system of works which the book of Galatians condemns

 

[asterisktom]

I don't believe I used the word 'heretical' or even the word 'parousia', I only said "I don't see where preterism is associated with not having 'essential saving doctrine". As a matter fact I don't see where preterism or any form of eschatology would be essential saving doctrine.

My response was because of JesusFan's usual reaction, calling my view a heresy and also your saying "yes" to it.

 

[asterisktom]

By who? By Rome? Or by the Eastern Orthodox Church? In their ECT statement, Rome agrees with justification by faith but they won't include the word 'alone'. The EOC is built on a system of works which the book of Galatians condemns

By Rome. Eck and several other leaders of the RCC challenged Luther by countering that his doctrine of justification by faith alone had no previous mention in the counsels and creeds.

 

[asterisktom]

Justification by faith implies there is nothing added to it.

 

[Blank]

By Rome. Eck and several other leaders of the RCC challenged Luther by countering that his doctrine of justification by faith alone had no previous mention in the counsels and creeds.

Justification by faith implies there is nothing added to it.

And what shall we add to faith?...

Romans 3:21,24 KJV
But now the righteousness of God without (apart from) the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; [24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Who's works shall we add? Paul's gospel has already consigned all men under sin (Rom. 3:9)
Christ Jesus is glorified when we cease from our own works, praising Him as just One.

Romans 3:31 KJV
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[JesusFan]

Martin Luther's belief in justification by faith had also been defined as heresy. And I guess you know what his answer was.

Big difference is he could point to scriptures to prove Pauline Justification, but Pretierism has zilch to point towards for evidence and proof

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, they must really have to stretch their mental imagination in order to come to that conclusion.

I think the greater imagination would be to redefine the many occurrences of the words and phrases "soon", "this generation", and "quickly" to mean other than what a plain reading would yield.