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

[asterisktom]

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

 

[asterisktom]

Our definition of Bible words ought to come from how they are used in the Bible. There are several good concordance and lexicon you could have cited. But didn't.

 

[asterisktom]

Our definition of Bible words ought to come from how they are used in the Bible. There are several good concordance and lexicon you could have cited. But didn't.

Typo: lexicon and concordances, plural.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification does not differ rather widely from the Protestant understandings of the doctrine that differ rather widely from each other. Indeed, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is nearly identical to the Lutheran doctrine. However, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification differs greatly from the Reformed Doctrine of Justification and very significantly from most Baptist doctrines of Justification—especially those that are heavily influenced by Reformed theology. The most substantial difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the many Baptist doctrines of Justification is that the Catholic Church distinguishes between initial justification and ultimate justification where the very large majority of Baptists (those who teach OSAS) make no such distinction. Another significant difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the many Baptist doctrines of Justification is that the Catholic Church emphasizes the quality of saving faith teaching that faith without “hope” and “love” is not biblical faith. Nonetheless, the quotes that I presented from the New American Bible and the commentaries on the Greek text of Romans by Boylan and by Fitzmyer clearly show that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification does not differ widely from the Protestant understandings of the doctrine that differ rather widely from each other.

Some years ago, I attended a Protestant Bible study that was also attended by a Roman Catholic Priest. The priest’s ignorance of the Bible and Roman Catholic dogma from a biblical perspective was shocking. At about the same time, I had a 90-minute conversation with Monsignor G******* who was the rector of a large cathedral. We talked about Roman Catholic dogma and his personal beliefs where they agreed and where they differed from that dogma. However, what really struck me was the unmistakable overriding presence of Christ in His life. That 90-minute conversation changed my life!

 

[Blank]

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.

In the light of eternal life I am assuming Jesus is speaking of the end of this temporal age. Christ will always be with us in this life and in the next.
So my logic is fine, could you please comment on my point?

"
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]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone, as do many Protestant churches. As I have already posted,

So Rome shed much innocent blood of the martyrs in the 16th century and these so-called Catholic scholars contradicted their own Council of Trent?
Are you a Roman Catholic apologist?

 

[asterisktom]

In the light of eternal life I am assuming Jesus is speaking of the end of this temporal age. Christ will always be with us in this life and in the next.
So my logic is fine, could you please comment on my point?

I did comment on your post. You didn't get my point. Possibly because of your above admitted assumption which is not allowing you to accept or understand what I wrote.

I get this a lot in sites like this. I post an OP that is pretty much pure Christology. I wouldn't be slain at the Brook Jabbok for posting it. But inevitably the thread gets derailed to my supposed heresy of full preterism. It gets tiresome. And sad to see so many Christians whose main foundation of faith - though they wouldn't admit to this - is tradition rather than Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification does not differ rather widely from the Protestant understandings of the doctrine that differ rather widely from each other.

We are on a Baptist website, so I will quote from the 1689 Baptist Confession. I have left out the proof-texts, but they can be found at Of Justification — The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
11:1 Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
11:2 Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.
11:3 Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those who are justified; and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due to them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in their behalf; yet, in as much as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

This is at variance with the official Roman Catholic 1994 Catechism which I quoted earlier, but here you are again: 'Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man (paragraph 1989).

Indeed, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is nearly identical to the Lutheran doctrine.

There was a "Joint declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation. They came out with a form of words to which the Lutherans could say, "This is salvation by faith alone" and Rome could say, "This is not salvation by faith alone." They then claimed to be in agreement!

However, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification differs greatly from the Reformed Doctrine of Justification and very significantly from most Baptist doctrines of Justification—especially those that are heavily influenced by Reformed theology.

Absolutely!

The most substantial difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the many Baptist doctrines of Justification is that the Catholic Church distinguishes between initial justification and ultimate justification where the very large majority of Baptists (those who teach OSAS) make no such distinction.

Either one is justified or one is not. There cannot be an 'initial justification' if at the end one is to be told that one is not justified after all. That is like an accused man being found not guilty, but then being slapped in jail anyway. And Justification is a legal term: Deut. 25:1. 'If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court, that the judges may judge them, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked....'

Another significant difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification and the many Baptist doctrines of Justification is that the Catholic Church emphasizes the quality of saving faith teaching that faith without “hope” and “love” is not biblical faith.

That is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Acts 16:31. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Hope and love will follow, but at the point of Justification, it is faith alone.

Nonetheless, the quotes that I presented from the New American Bible and the commentaries on the Greek text of Romans by Boylan and by Fitzmyer clearly show that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification does not differ widely from the Protestant understandings of the doctrine that differ rather widely from each other.

What they perhaps show is that Rome's understanding on these things varies widely.

Some years ago, I attended a Protestant Bible study that was also attended by a Roman Catholic Priest. The priest’s ignorance of the Bible and Roman Catholic dogma from a biblical perspective was shocking. At about the same time, I had a 90-minute conversation with Monsignor G******* who was the rector of a large cathedral. We talked about Roman Catholic dogma and his personal beliefs where they agreed and where they differed from that dogma. However, what really struck me was the unmistakable overriding presence of Christ in His life. That 90-minute conversation changed my life!

I am not saying that all Roman Catholics are lost. I am saying that many of their doctrines are unbiblical. God is not interested in denominations; those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation will be saved. But if your Monsignor is relying on his baptism as a tiny baby or his attendance at the mass or anything except the shed blood and perfect righteousness of Christ, he is on shaky ground.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I get this a lot in sites like this. I post an OP that is pretty much pure Christology. I wouldn't be slain at the Brook Jabbok for posting it. But inevitably the thread gets derailed to my supposed heresy of full preterism. It gets tiresome. And sad to see so many Christians whose main foundation of faith - though they wouldn't admit to this - is tradition rather than Scripture.

You introduced preterism into the O.P. You have only yourself to blame. And it's sad to see you having a main foundation of faith - though you wouldn't admit to this - in an unhealthy love of novelty rather than Scripture.

 

[Blank]

I did comment on your post. You didn't get my point. Possibly because of your above admitted assumption which is not allowing you to accept or understand what I wrote.

I get this a lot in sites like this. I post an OP that is pretty much pure Christology. I wouldn't be slain at the Brook Jabbok for posting it. But inevitably the thread gets derailed to my supposed heresy of full preterism. It gets tiresome. And sad to see so many Christians whose main foundation of faith - though they wouldn't admit to this - is tradition rather than Scripture.

To say my post is not logical is not a response, especially after I admitted why I assumed Jesus was speaking of the end of this temporal age.I also assume you carry assumptions of your own which "is not allowing you to accept or understand what others write" It's a pot/kettle thing.
If I recall, you were the first to engage me (post #9) and challenge me (post #11). I'm new here and hadn't read your sig and initially (posts 9& 11) didn't know of your preterist stance. So any derailment is on your dime.

 

[Craigbythesea]

What they perhaps show is that Rome's understanding on these things varies widely.

I am not saying that all Roman Catholics are lost. I am saying that many of their doctrines are unbiblical. God is not interested in denominations; those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation will be saved. But if your Monsignor is relying on his baptism as a tiny baby or his attendance at the mass or anything except the shed blood and perfect righteousness of Christ, he is on shaky ground.

The Roman Catholic Church believes in and teaches the Biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone as do the very large majority of Protestant churches, but they strongly disbelieve in the Reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone—as do the very large majority of Protestant churches.

Monsignor G******* believes in and teaches the Biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone. He believes in believer’s baptism and strongly disbelieves in paedobaptism. Furthermore, when members of his congregation come to a saving faith in Christ and ask him to baptize them as believing adults, he does so. I asked him if his bishop was aware of it, and he told me that he is aware of it but disapproves. However, the mode and time of water baptism is not nearly so important of the circumcision of the heart.

I asked him what the Catholic Church believes about the timing of the second coming of Christ, and he told me that his church does not have an official belief on that issue.

Many Baptists have in their DNA a very strong disrespect for the Roman Catholic Church—indeed, such a strong disrespect that their minds automatically shut out the truth so that they can continue in their false beliefs on that issue. I find precisely the same kind of thing in Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have in their DNA a very strong disbelief in the deity of Christ—indeed, such a strong disbelief that their minds automatically shut out the truth so that they can continue in their false beliefs on that issue. I find this to be an extremely serious matter because it draws into question the nature of their faith—is their faith genuine, or is it an automatic response to something in their DNA?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Our definition of Bible words ought to come from how they are used in the Bible. There are several good concordance and lexicon you could have cited. But didn't.

The BDAG, on pages 780-781, defines the Greek word παρουσία (parousia):

“Arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent” and when used of Christ nearly always “of his Messianic advent in glory to judge the world at the end of this age.”

For the benefit of those persons who are likely not familiar with the lexicography of ancient Greek, I wrote a few years ago a brief essay about the BDAG:

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

 

[Blank]

The Roman Catholic Church believes in and teaches the Biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone as do the very large majority of Protestant churches, but they strongly disbelieve in the Reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone—as do the very large majority of Protestant churches.

]
They go beyond that by anathematizing those who hold to justification by faith alone...From the COUNCIL OF TRENT/Canons concerning Justification...

Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Canon 15. If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 16. If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

Canon 17. If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.

Canon 18. If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

 

[Craigbythesea]

]
They go beyond that by anathematizing those who hold to justification by faith alone...From the COUNCIL OF TRENT/Canons concerning Justification...

Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Canon 15. If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 16. If anyone says that he will for certain, with an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance even to the end, unless he shall have learned this by a special revelation, let him be anathema.

Canon 17. If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.

Canon 18. If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

As has been correctly stated several or more times in this thread, The Council of Trent was convened to deal with the brand new, man made theological beliefs being birthed during the Reformation. Of special concern to the Bishops participating in the council of Trent was the new, unbiblical Reformed doctrine of justification that the very large majority of Protestant churches also believed to be heretical. The council of Trent had no Problems with the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith, which was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest days. Documentation proving that the Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone has also has been posted several or more times in this thread. However, some Baptists are so obsessed with bashing the Roman Catholic Church that they have lost sight of reality and live in a fantasy world of hatred toward members of the body of Christ that it has become fashionable in some circles to reject. Instead of bashing Christians, they should be repenting of the damnable sins in their own lives.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As has been correctly stated several or more times in this thread, The Council of Trent was convened to deal with the brand new, man made theological beliefs being birthed during the Reformation.

I must say that I am astonished that you claim to be a Baptist

Of special concern to the Bishops participating in the council of Trent was the new, unbiblical Reformed doctrine of justification that the very large majority of Protestant churches also believed to be heretical.

This is simply not true. Take for example the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. Article XI states, 'We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and is very full of comfort, as more largely expressed in the Homily of Justification.' What other Protestant confession will you bring forward to contradict this? Not the WCF, that's for sure.
Moreover, the Reformed Doctrine of Justification is entirely Biblical.
Acts 13:38-39. '.....Through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.'
Romans 3:20-22. 'Therefore by the deeds of the law [or 'works of Law'] no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of Sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.'
See also Romans 3:26, 28; 4:2-6; 4:13-14; 9:30-32; 10:4; 11:5-6; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-11; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; Titus 3:5, 7.

The council of Trent had no Problems with the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith, which was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest days.

That is not at issue. The question is about Justification by Faith alone.

Documentation proving that the Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone has also has been posted several or more times in this thread. However, some Baptists are so obsessed with bashing the Roman Catholic Church that they have lost sight of reality and live in a fantasy world of hatred toward members of the body of Christ that it has become fashionable in some circles to reject. Instead of bashing Christians, they should be repenting of the damnable sins in their own lives

I have taken the liberty of pasting one of your posts on the Other Christian Denominations forum to see what the Roman Catholics there think about it.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Think that per the prophetic elements of the Bible, the message would seem to be immenant at any time, and the bible very cleat that we are to live as if we expect the second coming to be today, but also be ready to live for Christ if still far off.

And under King Jesus messianic reigning here upon earth, will be paradise restored, no famines, sickness, wars, false religions etc

 

[JesusFan]

As has been correctly stated several or more times in this thread, The Council of Trent was convened to deal with the brand new, man made theological beliefs being birthed during the Reformation. Of special concern to the Bishops participating in the council of Trent was the new, unbiblical Reformed doctrine of justification that the very large majority of Protestant churches also believed to be heretical. The council of Trent had no Problems with the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith, which was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest days. Documentation proving that the Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone has also has been posted several or more times in this thread. However, some Baptists are so obsessed with bashing the Roman Catholic Church that they have lost sight of reality and live in a fantasy world of hatred toward members of the body of Christ that it has become fashionable in some circles to reject. Instead of bashing Christians, they should be repenting of the damnable sins in their own lives.

Rome theology of salvation is Sacramental Gracing, so its a mixture of faith and good works, and that is indeed a false gospel, as Rome teaches backwards, as she sees us must be sanctified enough toi be able to now merit being justified

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Rome theology of salvation is Sacramental Gracing, so its a mixture of faith and good works, and that is indeed a false gospel, as Rome teaches backwards, as she sees us must be sanctified enough now to be able to merit being justified

Exactly so. As soon as we add anything to faith, we are making people look at themselves instead of looking to Christ for justification, and asking, "Am I good enough? Can I work up enough love, enough good works to come to Jesus? What mountain must I climb, what river must I ford, what dragon must I slay to make myself good enough for God?" But Jesus didn't come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.
After we are justified, pronounced righteous through the merits of our Saviour, the Holy Spirit will move us to the good works that God has prepared for us (Eph 2:10). But at the point of justification we must look no further than to the Lord Jesus who is the Author as well as the Perfector of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

 

[Blank]

As has been correctly stated several or more times in this thread, The Council of Trent was convened to deal with the brand new, man made theological beliefs being birthed during the Reformation. Of special concern to the Bishops participating in the council of Trent was the new, unbiblical Reformed doctrine of justification that the very large majority of Protestant churches also believed to be heretical. The council of Trent had no Problems with the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith, which was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest days. Documentation proving that the Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone has also has been posted several or more times in this thread. However, some Baptists are so obsessed with bashing the Roman Catholic Church that they have lost sight of reality and live in a fantasy world of hatred toward members of the body of Christ that it has become fashionable in some circles to reject. Instead of bashing Christians, they should be repenting of the damnable sins in their own lives.

This is basically a nonanswer. Or are you saying that Rome has changed her mind about justification by faith alone? Many Reformers as martyrs spilt their blood over this issue.

Of special concern to the Bishops participating in the council of Trent was the new, unbiblical Reformed doctrine of justification that the very large majority of Protestant churches also believed to be heretical.

How ironic for a Roman Catholic to tag something as unbiblical when the Bible plays 2nd fiddle to Church tradition. Besides on what ground is a biblical doctrine deemed heretical if not the Bible?

The council of Trent had no Problems with the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith, which was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from its earliest days. Documentation proving that the Roman Catholic Church teaches justification by faith alone has also has been posted several or more times in this thread.

You do know the difference between justification by faith and justification by faith alone, right? You seem to be mixing the two, maybe that's the reason for the confusion.

However, some Baptists are so obsessed with bashing the Roman Catholic Church that they have lost sight of reality and live in a fantasy world of hatred toward members of the body of Christ that it has become fashionable in some circles to reject. Instead of bashing Christians, they should be repenting of the damnable sins in their own lives.

Maybe it's a hangover from the early Chick-Track days? Or maybe it's a matter of them waking up when they started reading their Bibles and Church history?

 

[Blank]

Rome theology of salvation is Sacramental Gracing, so its a mixture of faith and good works, and that is indeed a false gospel, as Rome teaches backwards, as she sees us must be sanctified enough toi be able to now merit being justified

Grace and merit are antithetical.

Romans 4:4 LSB
Now to the one who works, his wage is not counted according to grace, but according to what is due.