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?