I have been quoting Scripture. And asking the same from you. In vain.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Col. 1:19-22: Saved Through the Blood of the Cross
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
Blank
Active Member
What about the 'imagination' to assign the Book of Revelation to pre-70AD rather than the majority view of post 70AD, as well as having a rear view perspective on Bible prophecy?
For example in. Mt 16
Matthew 16:18 KJV
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Does that mean Jesus quit building His Church in 70AD?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Should we toss out as heresy the doctrine of justification by faith alone simply because Roman Catholics have taught it throughout the history of their church, and staunchly and unreservedly teach it today?
The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible (1971) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,
The justice of God is his mercy whereby he declares guilty man innocent and makes him so. He does this, not as a result of the Law, but apart from it (v 21), not because of any merit of man, but through forgiveness of his sins (v 24)in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22-24f), No man can boast of his own holiness, since it is God’s free gift (27), both to the Jew who practices circumcision out of faith, and to the Gentile who accepts faith without the Old Testament religious culture symbolized by circumcision (29f).
The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 3:21-31,
These verses provide a clear statement of Paul’s “gospel,” i.e., the principle of justification by faith in Christ. God has found a means of rescuing humanity from its desperate plight: Paul’s general term for this divine initiative is the righteousness of God (21). Divine mercy declares the guilty innocent and makes them so. God does this not as a result of the law but apart from it (21), and not because of any merit in human beings but through forgiveness of their sins (24), in virtue of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe (22.24-25). God has manifested his righteousness in the coming of Jesus Christ, whose saving activity inaugurates a new era in human history.
The Saint Joseph Edition of the New American Bible with the second edition of the New Testament (1986) has the following note on Rom. 4:3,
Jas 2, 24 appears to conflict with Paul’s statement. However, James combats the error of extremists who used the doctrine of justification through faith as a screen for moral self-determination. Paul discusses the subject of holiness in greater detail than does James and beginning with ch 6 shows how justification through faith introduces one to the gift of a new life in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, this is a Roman Catholic Bible with Roman Catholic notes published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company in New York with both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.
The late Monsignor Patrick Boylan, M.A., D.D., D. LITT., Consultor of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Professor of Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin. Formally, previously Professor of Sacred Scripture and Oriental Languages, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, in his 1947 commentary, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Translation and Commentary, writes on Romans 3:28,
He [Paul] wishes only to state that it is not a man’s fulfillment of Jewish, or other, prescriptions, that supplies the basis for his justification, but only his faith in Christ. Even in the Old Dispensation, faith was precisely as it is now, the sole means of approach to salvation.
The Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in his 1993 commentary on the Greek text of Romans, writes,
Paul uses anthrōpos even without the article, as in 1 Cor 4:1 and 7:1, and speaks generically and indifferently of “a human being,” making no specific reference to Greek or Jew. But his emphasis falls on pistei, "by faith," as Kuss, Bardenhewer, and Sickenberger recognize. That emphasis and the qualification “"apart from the deeds of (the) law" show that in this context Paul means “By faith alone.” Only faith appropriates God’s effective declaration of uprightness for a human being. These words repeat what Paul already said in v 20a.
Early Christians who taught justification by faith alone include the following:
Origin
Hilary
Basil
Ambrosiaster
John Chrysostom
Cyril of Alexander
Bernard
Theophylact
Theodoret
Thomas Aquinas
"Majority view" carries little weight with me. The majority do not have a saving faith or knowledge of God. Our understanding of spiritual truth comes from Christ not consensus.
There are several good reasons to see Revelation and the rest of Scripture as being written pre-70 AD. I wrote on this earlier here. If need be I can look for it again. Even Philip Schaff, having earlier published a later date for Revelation, published a retraction in a later edition of his History of the Christian Church.
I am not sure why you think is proof against my view. Maybe you can elaborate. Christ is always building His church.
Really? I wish it were so, but I am not aware that Rome has retracted from the Canons of Trent. Here is Canon IX: If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed of by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
And here is the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, (paragraph 1989): Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.
Hence Rome conflates Justification and Sanctification, and therefore maintains that justification is never complete in this life which means that there can be no assurance of salvation.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
How do you reconcile the contrast between the Roman Catholic Church as of December 4, 1563 and the current teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as evidenced by the direct, verbatim quotes that I posted?
My note to preterists:
The Roman Catholic church does not teach a preterist view of the Revelation or the rest of the New Testament. Indeed, that view was first presented during the Reformation. Since that time, Scholars of the Greek New Testament have overwhelmingly either ignored or rejected the preterist view of Revelation. That this is the case can be clearly seen by the fact that to date no academic quality commentaries on the Greek Text of Revelation have been published ( by publishing houses or university presses) that take a preterist view of Revelation. I fully realize that advocates for a preterist view of Revelation do not believe, at least for the most part, that Roman Catholics are even Christians and that commentaries on the Bible are nothing but the opinions of men. To the later objection, we have the following words of C. H. Spurgeon:
“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for those great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them, in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt….”
Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting & Commentaries. 1876.
" I fully realize that advocates for a preterist view of Revelation do not believe, at least for the most part, that Roman Catholics are even Christians and that commentaries on the Bible are nothing but the opinions of men."
I'm not sure where you got this notion about Preterists and Roman Catholics. I believe that we have pretty much the same percentages on that topic as general protestants.
.
I'm not sure where you got this notion about Preterists and Roman Catholics. I believe that we have pretty much the same percentages on that topic as general protestants.
.
From literally years of experience with JesusFan/Dechaser1/Yeshua1 here on the BB....don't hold your breath.
No, I'm not. And I don't waste too much time in dealing with them.
Your post really puzzles me.
Were the quotes that I gave not "direct, verbatim"? The Council of Trent still represents the teaching of the Church of Rome, and the 1994 Catechism, which is more recent than any of your quotes, is simply an iteration of that in more modern form. The motto of the Church of Rome is SEmper Eadem, "Always the Same." How do I reconcile them? I don't. How do you reconcile them?
What post of mine has given you the impression that I am a preterist? You could hardly be more mistaken. 'Normal' Preterism I regard as simply wrong; Hyper-preterism, the view that our Lord, having returned invisibly in AD 70, is never coming back, I regard as outside of Christian orthodoxy.
Amen to all that! Again, what on earth has given you the impression that I am opposed to commentaries? I have shelves full of them.
I realize that you weren't responding to me but, just so others here know. I am a full preterists but, I don't believe the return of Christ was invisible. And I place the date at AD 66. What you are describing sounds like the so-called Covenant Eschatology preterists.
No matter. You believe that Christ is never coming back. That's bad enough for me.
I believe, according to His oft-repeated promises that He would come in that generation, that Christ is here now. That is what Parousia means - presence.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Two points.
(1) I was not addressing you in the second part of my post, but rather whatever preterists might read my post. That is why I began the second part of my post with the words, “My note to preterists:”
(2) The Council of Trent was convened to address the new teachings coming from the Reformation. The Church had no issues with the Biblical Doctrine of Justification by faith, but it saw in the Reformed Doctrine of Justification by faith significant problems that needed to be examined by the council. On January 13, 1547, the council promulgated the new degree on justification (de justifccatione). It consisted of a preface and sixteen chapters with thirty-three canons that condemned as heresies the new teachings found in the Reformed Doctrine of Justification by faith.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Merriam-Webster bases all of it definitions upon their own massive database of actual word usage. That database clearly shows that in the English-speaking world, the word Parousia does not express the concept “presence” but rather it expresses the concept:
in Christian theology
: the time when Jesus Christ will return to judge humanity at the end of the world : SECOND COMING
Blank
Active Member
that's fine but can you comment on the rest of my post?
Matthew 16:18 KJV
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Does that mean Jesus quit building His Church in 70AD?
(This was a promise pre-70AD, but obviously continuing today, or would you say it is not to be fulfilled after 70AD)??
Blank
Active Member
So which is it? "By faith" (Rome) or "by faith alone"(Protestants)?
I can't but see you are saying essentially the same thing. I would never throw out 'by faith alone'.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone, as do many Protestant churches. As I have already posted,
The late Monsignor Patrick Boylan, M.A., D.D., D. LITT., Consultor of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Professor of Eastern Languages, University College, Dublin. Formally, previously Professor of Sacred Scripture and Oriental Languages, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, in his 1947 commentary, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Translation and Commentary, writes on Romans 3:28,
He [Paul] wishes only to state that it is not a man’s fulfillment of Jewish, or other, prescriptions, that supplies the basis for his justification, but only his faith in Christ. Even in the Old Dispensation, faith was precisely as it is now, the sole means of approach to salvation.
The Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in his 1993 commentary on the Greek text of Romans, writes,
Paul uses anthrōpos even without the article, as in 1 Cor 4:1 and 7:1, and speaks generically and indifferently of “a human being,” making no specific reference to Greek or Jew. But his emphasis falls on pistei, "by faith," as Kuss, Bardenhewer, and Sickenberger recognize. That emphasis and the qualification “"apart from the deeds of (the) law" show that in this context Paul means “By faith alone.” Only faith appropriates God’s effective declaration of uprightness for a human being. These words repeat what Paul already said in v 20a.
Early Christians who taught justification by faith alone include the following:
Origin
Hilary
Basil
Ambrosiaster
John Chrysostom
Cyril of Alexander
Bernard
Theophylact
Theodoret
Thomas Aquinas
I should add here a bit about the commentary on the Greek text of Romans by Fitzmyer. This is one of the very best commentaries on the Greek text of Romans. It was published by Yale University Press as part of the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series that includes a translation and exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Intertestamental Books (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanon/the Protestant Apocrypha; not the books called by Catholics and Orthodox “Apocrypha”, which are widely called by Protestants “Pseudepigrapha”). This volume on Romans is an 827-page work of such importance that the Southern Baptist Bible Scholar Thomas R. Schreiner cites it over 400 times in his own commentary on Romans. Along with the commentary on Romans by Boylan, Fitzmyer’s commentary on Romans presents a clear and easy to understand analysis of Paul’s epistle from the Roman Catholic perspective that is generally unknown to Baptists who routinely misrepresent what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about justification by faith alone.
Fair enough, but since my name was attached to the post, it might have been better to make a separate posting.
I am not unacquainted with the Council of Trent and its purposes. However, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification differs rather widely from the Protestant (and Baptist) understanding as I have pointed out to you. You might like to contact Cathode, who is a real, live Roman Catholic, on the Other Christian Denominations forum and ask him if Rome now believes in Justification by Faith Alone.
But your point is not logical. Jesus also told His disciples that He would be with them "unto the end of the age". Whether we see the end of the age as AD 66 or 70 or still future - as I assume you do - this, according to your same logic, means that there will be a time when Christ will not be with them. Clearly not true.